Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AudreyHepburn

Just a few points on the main aspects of this thread ;

1.)I can almost guarentee the same people calling for Tubridy to demand an confession of murder from the McCanns would the same ones up in arms if he actually did saying he was insensitive and cruel and how are he put grieving parents through that etc etc.

2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

3.)If it were me, and I had the money, I would spend every cent I had in whatever way I saw fit to find my child. All of you would and you know it. Do not critise Kate and Gerry for doing everything in their power to find their little girl.

4.)The McCanns social status and occupations are completely irrelevant except in the sense that they allow them to afford to keep searching for Madeleine. Madeliene being white or her parents being doctors have nothing to do with anything tbh.

5.) I could be wrong but I think it was simply Madeleine's DNA as opposed to her blood or the scent of her dead body that the dog found in the apartment and car (I'll look it up) and there are a million and one ways that could have been there eg. from Madeleine being present herself, from her clothes or toys etc. It does equal a dead body.

6.)Just because Kate and Gerry don't fall to their knees wailng and tearing at their hair does not mean they are devestated at Madeleine's disappearence. Everyone reacts differently to grief and unless anyone hear has lost a child I don't think we can really judge them.

7.) The McCann's made a big mistake leaving the babies in the apartment that night, though people seem to be neglecting the fact that the little ones were being checked on regularly. However this does make them bad parents nor does it mean they killed Madeleine or covered up her accidental death. There is no real evidence, that I can see, for either of those scenarios.

_feedback_

dark crystal wrote: »

Perhaps he actually believes they are the grieving couple of a missing child and doesn't necessarily want to treat the interview like a police investigation.

Or perhaps he will sate the needs of the cynics and give them the third degree....who knows until the interview actually airs?

I have no doubt they are grieving. I also have no doubt that he wont question the gaping holes in their story, and the flashing neon signs that say negligent.

Wibbs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

5.) I could be wrong but I think it was simply Madeleine's DNA as opposed to her blood or the scent of her dead body that the dog found in the apartment and car (I'll look it up) and there are a million and one ways that could have been there eg. from Madeleine being present herself, from her clothes or toys etc. It does equal a dead body.

Fruedian slip at the end?

The dogs don't pick up DNA(and couldn't anyway), they react to the specific scents given off by a body after death. These scents are present quite soon after as the body starts to decay. These scents are not present in the living, so the presence of the living subject won't trigger the dog's response. It's why the findings were pounced upon. For both dogs to pick this up in both the apartment and the car is damn suspicious. Now if the dogs are right and these dogs are remarkably consistent, then either both the apartment and the hire car had two separate corpses in them in the weeks or months leading up to the McAnns visit, or there was one corpse common to both. It does not look good.

nor does it mean they killed Madeleine or covered up her accidental death. There is no real evidence, that I can see, for either of those scenarios.

Objectively speaking there is more evidence for it than against it. There are glaring holes in their testimony and the timeline, there are the dogs responses. Plus in these kinda cases in the vast majority of cases the person is close to or known by the victim. Most of all there is absolutely not a single scrap of evidence for the abduction scenario. None at all. While the evidence to convict is lacking and likely always will be(unless the body turns up), so far on current evidence and logic they're part in the goings on of that evening is highly dubious.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

7.) The McCann's made a big mistake leaving the babies in the apartment that night, though people seem to be neglecting the fact that the little ones were being checked on regularly. However this does make them bad parents nor does it mean they killed Madeleine or covered up her accidental death. There is no real evidence, that I can see, for either of those scenarios.

Well I've no opinion on Tubridy that much, actually I think the abuse he gets is way OTT, he's a chat show host, though a couple of tough questions wouldn't go astray!

The best way I can point out how point 7 is a big deal is:

If 3 couples were down the local and took it in turns to go check their children every half hour in the housing estate around the corner, would you be okay with that? Would you not find it odd that they didn't get a babysitter for the night?

Appleblossom42

dark crystal wrote: »

You know, this reminds me of the case where the Chamberlains in Australia were villified by the press and public for leaving their baby daughter alone in a tent whilst they ate barbeque nearby. The child was then dragged off by a dingo and they were put on trial for manslaughter by the police, who blamed them for concocting such a ludicrous story.

Of course, people were so quick to judge their parenting abilities, it never occured to them that they may be innocent, grieving parents thrown to the wolves by the press and the baying mob, simply for the committing the crime of leaving their child on it's own temporarily whilst they ate dinner as their child slept, as they thought, safely. She was jailed, later to be pardoned, when the story turned out to be true.

Of course, my heart goes out to Maddie, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge her parents as others are. As parents, we all make judgement calls - most are sound; others not so much. the McCanns don't strike me as bad parents at all. I'm sure they feel guiltier than anyone else could ever make them feel.

I'd be much quicker to direct my accusations at whoever kidnapped the child, rather than the grieving parents left forever to pick up the pieces and regret that evening 'till the day they die.

Agree with every bit of this, of course they know they were wrong to leave the children alone. The first thing I thought when the story became public was they should be charged with neglect, then was shocked to hear both were doctors. I'm sure they blame themselves and I do believe Madeleine was abducted by someone who copped she was being left alone unsupervised, then swooped in. Unfortunately this was because her parents had decided to take that risk. I'm sure they beat themselves up about this every waking moment and wish they could step back in time, I know I would be suicidal. I also can't believe how twisted people are to think they have an agenda other than wanting to find their daughter. I hope to God it wasn't a paedophile gang that took her, she would be better off dead. Imagine that going through your mind every day and every night. If she is alive lets hope she's being looked after properly.

endabob1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

J

5.) I could be wrong but I think it was simply Madeleine's DNA as opposed to her blood or the scent of her dead body that the dog found in the apartment and car (I'll look it up) and there are a million and one ways that could have been there eg. from Madeleine being present herself, from her clothes or toys etc. It does equal a dead body..

You are wrong it was human cadaverine which is specifically from a human corpse, not DNA & not blood

This is an extract from the Madeline Foundation leaflet, I can't link to it from my work unfortunately.

Here are the main facts about the findings of the two British springer spaniels, Eddie and Keela:
· they were trained by expert dog-handler Martin Grime and are internationally famed for being able to detect the presence of a corpse (Eddie) or blood (Keela)
· Grime said that Eddie had never ever given a ‘false alert’ in 200 previous outings
· Eddie alerts only to human cadaverine - the scent of a human corpse. This is usually only produced in a corpse when the body has been dead for over 2 hours
· Eddie alerted to the scent of a corpse in the following places: the living room, the McCanns’ bedroom, the veranda and the garden of their holiday apartment, on two of Dr Kate McCann’s clothes, on a T-shirt belonging to Madeleine or brother Sean, and on the pink soft toy, ‘Cuddle Cat’ (despite the fact that Dr Kate McCann had already washed Cuddle Cat at least once)
· Eddie also detected the smell of death in the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic car
· Keela found blood at some of the same locations
· Eddie and Keela were taken to many other apartments and cars in Praia da Luz, but did not alert anywhere else
· checks were made by the Portuguese police as to whether anyone else had died in the McCanns’ apartment or in their car. No-one had

Kess73

1.)I can almost guarentee the same people calling for Tubridy to demand an confession of murder from the McCanns would the same ones up in arms if he actually did saying he was insensitive and cruel and how are he put grieving parents through that etc etc.

If they are to be questioned or "grilled" then a no mark like Tubridy is not the one to do it. It should be by police and behind closed doors away from the public. Anything like that done on TV would be a joke.

But as the McCanns have shown, they don't co-operate with police and had a track record of using the media from day one to leak information about what the police were investigating.

They said to the press who they suspected.

They repeated what was said between them and the police behind closed doors whilst the investiogation was ongoing.

They refused to answer questions about the night in question.

Their own "witnesses" changed stories a number of times.

Both the Portugese police and the UK police the McCanns asked for both think there was no abduction.

2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

I would be very slow to believe him as well on a lot of things as he strikes me as being out to make money.

3.)If it were me, and I had the money, I would spend every cent I had in whatever way I saw fit to find my child. All of you would and you know it. Do not critise Kate and Gerry for doing everything in their power to find their little girl.

But every cent of the huge sums they received did not go towards the search for the child. There was a bit of fuss about this when it first came out, but it generally gets overlooked and people try to claim that all the money goes towards finding the kid.

Funny how it gets called a charity but is actually listed as a PLC. Then again there are laws in place for what money received by a Charity can be used for, whereas money made by a PLC is a very different story.

4.)The McCanns social status and occupations are completely irrelevant except in the sense that they allow them to afford to keep searching for Madeleine. Madeliene being white or her parents being doctors have nothing to do with anything tbh.

Their status as doctors is relevant if the child was given any drugs to make her sleep. Interestingly enough one of the first things that happened when news first broke of the DNA test finding traces of sleeping drugs was Kate stepping down as a GP, and she has never taken up that title since.

Seems strange that a person would do that if they were 100% that neither of them medicated their child. Then again if she remained as a GP and it was found that she administered drugs, then she would be in bigger trouble for it than a layperson.

5.) I could be wrong but I think it was simply Madeleine's DNA as opposed to her blood or the scent of her dead body that the dog found in the apartment and car (I'll look it up) and there are a million and one ways that could have been there eg. from Madeleine being present herself, from her clothes or toys etc. It does equal a dead body

.


It was a cadaver dog that picked up the scent in the car. A dog trained to react only to the scent of something dead. The same dog was also one of a few dogs used in the apartment.

6.)Just because Kate and Gerry don't fall to their knees wailng and tearing at their hair does not mean they are devestated at Madeleine's disappearence. Everyone reacts differently to grief and unless anyone hear has lost a child I don't think we can really judge them.

Would agree with you there. People handle things differently so that is no proof of their guilt or innocence.

7.) The McCann's made a big mistake leaving the babies in the apartment that night, though people seem to be neglecting the fact that the little ones were being checked on regularly. However this does make them bad parents nor does it mean they killed Madeleine or covered up her accidental death. There is no real evidence, that I can see, for either of those scenarios

.


Leaving your tiny children alone in a hotel room whilst you go eating and drinking away from the building is bad parenting. What was Madeline then? 3 I think and the twins were about 1 year old.

As for there being no evidence for the two scenarios, well you are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence as if there was they would be arrested.

But there is also not enough evidence to prove the story of the McCanns as pointed out by the police of both counteries when the final report came in which stated that neither police force believed that there was an abduction due to lack of evidence and conflicting statements from all the witnesses involved.



There are so many possible scenarios for this case, some would have the McCanns as being totally innocent of their child's disappearance or death, and some would suggest that they had some involvement in either the disappearance/death or in covering up something that would have aided the investigation.

Unless a body gets found, we will have little chance of knowing the actual truth. Even then it may not give enough answers.

But the story of what happened that night has changed a number of times, and the McCanns/their friends/PR people seem to have had no problem changing what they remembered to fit new versions which does raise the hint of suspicion.



One image that always stayed with me was this one. Taken one week after the little girl went missing.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SsUIODOeCZI/AAAAAAAAG5c/kbADfwXGFF0/s1600/happycouple.jpg


It was the little girl's birthday and the couple were all laughing and smiling, and Gerry in particular was like a guy lapping up cheers after scoring a winning goal in a cup final.

Now it proves nothing, but it struck me as odd.


Also there is the statements from two other people that case some doubt as to the story of the regular checks on the children.

Najova Chekaya was invited to the table with the McCanns and their friends and was there from 9:30 up to when Kate went to check on the children, but in the statement says that she saw nobody leave the table whilst she was sitting there until Kate left. Yet the McCanns have sworn that a friend of their did check during that timeframe.

Also Jane Tanner's statement was cast further into doubt, and not just because she changed her statement of what she saw three times, but becaase she claimed she saw a man carrying a child just after Gerry check the apartment, yet the man that Gerry spoke to at that time, Jeremy Wilkins, was in that very same narrow laneway and whilst he saw and spoke to Gerry McCann, he has gone on record to say that there was no sign of Jane Tanner there nor did a man carrying a child pass him. The timelines given by the McCanns and Tanner meant it would have been impossible to not have crossed paths with Jeremy Wilkins, yet only Gerry McCann crossed his path. CCTV footage backed up Jeremy Wilkins' statement as to when he was where he claimed.

There is also the fact that the phone and text records of the people at the McCann table contradict where some of them said they were at certain times. This took longer to find out as the McCanns along with their friends had deleted their call lists and texts messages before letting the police see their phones, so those calls and messages had to be retrieved through phone companies.


Another questions that was never answered and the police did ask it is the one about the first call to the police. The claim is that the child was found to be missing at approx 22:00, yet the first call to the police is recorded at 23:50. Yet Kate claims the police were called at 22:10.

The hotel phone records plus the police phone records both show a call to the police at 23:50. This has never been answered by the McCanns or their friends, but when it came out a day or two later what happened? Family members of the McCanns back in the UK went straight to Sky News and went on the attack against the police.

Things like that that go unanswered plant seeds of doubt.

maebee

Brian Kennedy Admits Madeleine Fund was for Legal Expenditure


http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t14816-brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure

AudreyHepburn

Wibbs wrote: »

Fruedian slip at the end?

The dogs don't pick up DNA(and couldn't anyway), they react to the specific scents given off by a body after death. These scents are present quite soon after as the body starts to decay. These scents are not present in the living, so the presence of the living subject won't trigger the dog's response. It's why the findings were pounced upon. For both dogs to pick this up in both the apartment and the car is damn suspicious. Now if the dogs are right and these dogs are remarkably consistent, then either both the apartment and the hire car had two separate corpses in them in the weeks or months leading up to the McAnns visit, or there was one corpse common to both. It does not look good.

Yes a freudian slip! Well spotted

Also I did admit I might be wrong about the dog, but genuinely thought I'd heard it was her DNA.

K-9 wrote: »

The best way I can point out how point 7 is a big deal is:

If 3 couples were down the local and took it in turns to go check their children every half hour in the housing estate around the corner, would you be okay with that? Would you not find it odd that they didn't get a babysitter for the night?

For the 100th time I am NOT repeat NOT saying it was right to leave the children alone, though in a totally different estate is different to across the courtyard.

I just don't think it is a good enough reason to assume the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise, as many seem to inist.

Appleblossom42 wrote: »

Agree with every bit of this, of course they know they were wrong to leave the children alone. The first thing I thought when the story became public was they should be charged with neglect, then was shocked to hear both were doctors. I'm sure they blame themselves and I do believe Madeleine was abducted by someone who copped she was being left alone unsupervised, then swooped in. Unfortunately this was because her parents had decided to take that risk. I'm sure they beat themselves up about this every waking moment and wish they could step back in time, I know I would be suicidal. I also can't believe how twisted people are to think they have an agenda other than wanting to find their daughter. I hope to God it wasn't a paedophile gang that took her, she would be better off dead. Imagine that going through your mind every day and every night. If she is alive lets hope she's being looked after properly.

Agree with everything you've said here.

Kess73 wrote: »

Their status as doctors is relevant if the child was given any drugs to make her sleep.

But we have no evidence at all for that so no it is not relevent.

And the other problem I have is people seem to be using the McCann's profession as a reason to suspect them. Or they say if they weren't doctors they'd be in jail. It's madness.

They are not in jail because they are not guilty if anything, simple as.

maebee

Gonçalo Amaral issues plea for Kate McCann to "tell the truth", 10 May 2011


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

For the 100th time I am NOT repeat NOT saying it was right to leave the children alone, though in a totally different estate is different to across the courtyard.

I just don't think it is a good enough reason to assume the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise, as many seem to inist.

Oh, the McCann's version maybe true but the problem is we don't know as they weren't there at the apartment according to what they say! We are going on there word.

The police evidence raises suspicions but you just want to dismiss them. You'll just dismiss them which makes it rather like banging a head against a wall.

PS. It's an unsolved case so nothing has been proven, one way or the other.

MagicMarker

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I just don't think it is a good enough reason to assume the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise, as many seem to inist.

I don't think anyone believes the McCanns killed her because of the sole fact that they left her alone, in fact I doubt all that many people believe they killed her in the first place, but possibly there was an accident, and they think that because of the holes in their stories combined with such things as the cadaver dogs picking up a scent both inside the apartment and in the rental car.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes a freudian slip! Well spotted

Also I did admit I might be wrong about the dog, but genuinely thought I'd heard it was her DNA.



For the 100th time I am NOT repeat NOT saying it was right to leave the children alone, though in a totally different estate is different to across the courtyard.

I just don't think it is a good enough reason to assume the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise, as many seem to inist.



Agree with everything you've said here.



But we have no evidence at all for that so no it is not relevent.

And the other problem I have is people seem to be using the McCann's profession as a reason to suspect them. Or they say if they weren't doctors they'd be in jail. It's madness.

They are not in jail because they are not guilty if anything, simple as.

People don't always end up in jail if they are guilty, and people don't always go unpunished despite being innicent.


It just boils down to what evidence can or cannot prove.

What has been put forward by the authorities who investigated this case is that there is not enough evidence to convict the McCanns of something, but that there is not enough evidence to prove that there was an aduction.


Without an actual body, dead or alive, this case is in Schrodinger's cat territory.


Some people think the McCanns are 100% right and there is no doubt whatsoever that everything they had said is true.


Some people think they are 100% wrong and that they defo had some hand in their daughter's death/disappearance.


Some people think that there is enough doubt there, based on what evidence is available, that either scenario or a mixture of both is possible.


Personally I fall into the third group.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

Source?

K-9

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes the McCanns killed her because of the sole fact that they left her alone, in fact I doubt all that many people believe they killed her in the first place, but possibly there was an accident, and they think that because of the holes in their stories combined with such things as the cadaver dogs picking up a scent both inside the apartment and in the rental car.

The rental car part is what I can't make any sense of. Knowing what 3 year olds can be like it is very conceivable an accident happened, falling of the couch eg. some toddlers can be very hyper and accident prone and it seems she was a bit like that.

They didn't rent the car till much later so it just seems odd, can't make head nor tail of it! With so much media coverage it seems amazing that they'd have stored the body somewhere and 25 days later, in one of the most high profile cases ever, just try and dump a body! Bizarre.

Sir Oxman

maebee wrote: »

Gonçalo Amaral issues plea for Kate McCann to "tell the truth", 10 May 2011


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"That is one of the misunderstandings that are created by the McCanns," he said, "they do not want the case to be reviewed, they merely want a review of the information that has been added after the shelving (sightings of the child).

"If they wanted the case to be reviewed, they would ask for the crime process and the investigation to be reopened, and they would supply all of the reports from the various private detectives that they have hired.

"To ask for the process to be reopened, all it would take is a letter to the Prosecutor, as it has already happened in so many other cases. It costs them nothing, just the stamp on the letter."

If the process were reopened, Mr Amaral believes there are "several" diligences which could be carried out to help discover the truth.

"There will always be diligences that will result from reviewing the investigation and the reports from the McCanns' private detectives. Those diligences will have to take the conclusions that the Police had reached in September of 2007 into account.

"That is the starting point, but in the end it could happen that those conclusions are not confirmed. What is necessary is to complete an investigation that was suddenly interrupted due to the will of the parents of a child that has disappeared mysteriously."

Mr Amaral has no doubts about which action would have to be undertaken immediately to help unearth the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

"The first diligence, after the review, will have to be the reconstruction of that night of the 3rd of May, 2007."

There's a question Tubridy could ask on Friday.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Tigerbaby

Audreyhepburn


2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

Have you read his book? I recommend it. He comes across as a genuine man, a human, with a 4 year old daughter himself at the time. You should know that the "beatings" were nothing to do with him, and relate to a case where a child was beaten to death by a couple found in delectio flagrante. The child had seen her mother making love to a man who was not her husband. The lovers turned on the child, killed her savagely, dismembered her and tried to hide the body. Nice people, eh?

Would you feel confident saying those spiteful things to him in public? Like everyone else here, I know nothing about what happened. I can only use conjecture from the available evidence. His book is damning in its factuality.

thebullkf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just a few points on the main aspects of this thread ;

1.)I can almost guarentee the same people calling for Tubridy to demand an confession of murder from the McCanns would the same ones up in arms if he actually did saying he was insensitive and cruel and how are he put grieving parents through that etc etc.

2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

3.)If it were me, and I had the money, I would spend every cent I had in whatever way I saw fit to find my child. All of you would and you know it. Do not critise Kate and Gerry for doing everything in their power to find their little girl.

4.)The McCanns social status and occupations are completely irrelevant except in the sense that they allow them to afford to keep searching for Madeleine. Madeliene being white or her parents being doctors have nothing to do with anything tbh.

5.) I could be wrong but I think it was simply Madeleine's DNA as opposed to her blood or the scent of her dead body that the dog found in the apartment and car (I'll look it up) and there are a million and one ways that could have been there eg. from Madeleine being present herself, from her clothes or toys etc. It does equal a dead body.

6.)Just because Kate and Gerry don't fall to their knees wailng and tearing at their hair does not mean they are devestated at Madeleine's disappearence. Everyone reacts differently to grief and unless anyone hear has lost a child I don't think we can really judge them.

7.) The McCann's made a big mistake leaving the babies in the apartment that night, though people seem to be neglecting the fact that the little ones were being checked on regularly. However this does make them bad parents nor does it mean they killed Madeleine or covered up her accidental death. There is no real evidence, that I can see, for either of those scenarios.

eh... yes it does.

Their other children should've been taken by child services until they could prove they were capable parents.
Going for a fcuking meal and leaving kids home alone is bad parenting.
Its a tragic,tragic case.
The McCanns are certainly making money outta this, how much is re-invested into the search for their daughter is actually unknown,we can only go by what we're told.
Everybody would react differently if in their shoes tbh, one doesn't know until it happens to them. I hope for Maddies sake she's at peace wherever she is,and the parents find closure.
If the parents are guilty, they've to live with themselves for the rest of their lives, in my eyes thats punishment.
If they aren't guilty, i hope they find closure.

IMO- it doesn't add up-there's definitely something fishy about it all, be it being involved directly/indirectly themselves,or Gerry self-medicating the kids so's they can go out,to the allegations of a pedophile ring-suggestive dinner conversation(nipple thing) et al.

The only truth i believe is we haven't heard all the evidence.

Why didn't they avail of the babysitting service?
Why the everchanging descriptions?
Why the naming of Murat?

Why not come out and explain all the questions being put forward to them..??

maebee

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Audreyhepburn


2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

Have you read his book? I recommend it. He comes across as a genuine man, a human, with a 4 year old daughter himself at the time. You should know that the "beatings" were nothing to do with him, and relate to a case where a child was beaten to death by a couple found in delectio flagrante. The child had seen her mother making love to a man who was not her husband.

(He was her brother) :mad:

The lovers turned on the child, killed her savagely, dismembered her and tried to hide the body. Nice people, eh?

Would you feel confident saying those spiteful things to him in public? Like everyone else here, I know nothing about what happened. I can only use conjecture from the available evidence. His book is damning in its factuality.

Goncalo Amaral has dedicated the last four years of his life searching for Madeleine, something her mother admitted to not doing herself.

thebullkf

Kess73 wrote: »

If they are to be questioned or "grilled" then a no mark like Tubridy is not the one to do it. It should be by police and behind closed doors away from the public. Anything like that done on TV would be a joke.

But as the McCanns have shown, they don't co-operate with police and had a track record of using the media from day one to leak information about what the police were investigating.

They said to the press who they suspected.

They repeated what was said between them and the police behind closed doors whilst the investiogation was ongoing.

They refused to answer questions about the night in question.

Their own "witnesses" changed stories a number of times.

Both the Portugese police and the UK police the McCanns asked for both think there was no abduction.





I would be very slow to believe him as well on a lot of things as he strikes me as being out to make money.





But every cent of the huge sums they received did not go towards the search for the child. There was a bit of fuss about this when it first came out, but it generally gets overlooked and people try to claim that all the money goes towards finding the kid.

Funny how it gets called a charity but is actually listed as a PLC. Then again there are laws in place for what money received by a Charity can be used for, whereas money made by a PLC is a very different story.






Their status as doctors is relevant if the child was given any drugs to make her sleep. Interestingly enough one of the first things that happened when news first broke of the DNA test finding traces of sleeping drugs was Kate stepping down as a GP, and she has never taken up that title since.

Seems strange that a person would do that if they were 100% that neither of them medicated their child. Then again if she remained as a GP and it was found that she administered drugs, then she would be in bigger trouble for it than a layperson.




.


It was a cadaver dog that picked up the scent in the car. A dog trained to react only to the scent of something dead. The same dog was also one of a few dogs used in the apartment.







Would agree with you there. People handle things differently so that is no proof of their guilt or innocence.




.


Leaving your tiny children alone in a hotel room whilst you go eating and drinking away from the building is bad parenting. What was Madeline then? 3 I think and the twins were about 1 year old.

As for there being no evidence for the two scenarios, well you are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence as if there was they would be arrested.

But there is also not enough evidence to prove the story of the McCanns as pointed out by the police of both counteries when the final report came in which stated that neither police force believed that there was an abduction due to lack of evidence and conflicting statements from all the witnesses involved.



There are so many possible scenarios for this case, some would have the McCanns as being totally innocent of their child's disappearance or death, and some would suggest that they had some involvement in either the disappearance/death or in covering up something that would have aided the investigation.

Unless a body gets found, we will have little chance of knowing the actual truth. Even then it may not give enough answers.

But the story of what happened that night has changed a number of times, and the McCanns/their friends/PR people seem to have had no problem changing what they remembered to fit new versions which does raise the hint of suspicion.



One image that always stayed with me was this one. Taken one week after the little girl went missing.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SsUIODOeCZI/AAAAAAAAG5c/kbADfwXGFF0/s1600/happycouple.jpg


It was the little girl's birthday and the couple were all laughing and smiling, and Gerry in particular was like a guy lapping up cheers after scoring a winning goal in a cup final.

Now it proves nothing, but it struck me as odd.


Also there is the statements from two other people that case some doubt as to the story of the regular checks on the children.

Najova Chekaya was invited to the table with the McCanns and their friends and was there from 9:30 up to when Kate went to check on the children, but in the statement says that she saw nobody leave the table whilst she was sitting there until Kate left. Yet the McCanns have sworn that a friend of their did check during that timeframe.

Also Jane Tanner's statement was cast further into doubt, and not just because she changed her statement of what she saw three times, but becaase she claimed she saw a man carrying a child just after Gerry check the apartment, yet the man that Gerry spoke to at that time, Jeremy Wilkins, was in that very same narrow laneway and whilst he saw and spoke to Gerry McCann, he has gone on record to say that there was no sign of Jane Tanner there nor did a man carrying a child pass him. The timelines given by the McCanns and Tanner meant it would have been impossible to not have crossed paths with Jeremy Wilkins, yet only Gerry McCann crossed his path. CCTV footage backed up Jeremy Wilkins' statement as to when he was where he claimed.

There is also the fact that the phone and text records of the people at the McCann table contradict where some of them said they were at certain times. This took longer to find out as the McCanns along with their friends had deleted their call lists and texts messages before letting the police see their phones, so those calls and messages had to be retrieved through phone companies.


Another questions that was never answered and the police did ask it is the one about the first call to the police. The claim is that the child was found to be missing at approx 22:00, yet the first call to the police is recorded at 23:50. Yet Kate claims the police were called at 22:10.

The hotel phone records plus the police phone records both show a call to the police at 23:50. This has never been answered by the McCanns or their friends, but when it came out a day or two later what happened? Family members of the McCanns back in the UK went straight to Sky News and went on the attack against the police.

Things like that that go unanswered plant seeds of doubt.

Excellent post.

+ 1,000,000

Tipsy McSwagger

TheZohan wrote: »

Source?

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/8948,news-comment,news-politics,mccanns-lunchtime-goncala-bites-the-dust

Tipsy McSwagger

What did Detective Amaral do with all the money he made from the book?

TheZohanS

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/8948,news-comment,news-politics,mccanns-lunchtime-goncala-bites-the-dust

Where does it say he was convicted of beating anyone? He was questioned and found innocent, he wasn't anywhere near the station when the beating of the murderer took place.

That article is, at best, an opinion piece. He wasn't fired, he retired.

Do you have a proper source?

You're clutching at straws here.

sham69

I assume he made a lot of money from the book.
It also seems that the mcCanns decided a year after the book was released to sue him after half a million copies were sold.
Another nice few quid to add to the money they have swindled from sympathetic people who think they are giving their money to help search for a missing child.

TheZohanS

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

What did Detective Amaral do with all the money he made from the book?

He made the english version of his book freely available online, freely, as in for free with no profits.

mconigol

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Audreyhepburn


2.) In relation to Amaral and his book the man was put of the case for incompetency and drinking on the job and to honest I'm not willing to take the word of a man willing beat confessions out of people.

Have you read his book? I recommend it. He comes across as a genuine man, a human, with a 4 year old daughter himself at the time. You should know that the "beatings" were nothing to do with him, and relate to a case where a child was beaten to death by a couple found in delectio flagrante. The child had seen her mother making love to a man who was not her husband. The lovers turned on the child, killed her savagely, dismembered her and tried to hide the body. Nice people, eh?

Would you feel confident saying those spiteful things to him in public? Like everyone else here, I know nothing about what happened. I can only use conjecture from the available evidence. His book is damning in its factuality.

You really have to question this man's motives.

Why the special interest in the McCann case?
Has he successfully solved 100% of cases ever assigned to him?
If not, then why did he decided to peruse this one specifically?
How trustworthy is his?

This man was recently convicted for submitting false testimony in the Leonor Cipriano case and received an 18 month sentence (suspended) which was also rejected by the Court of Appeal of Evora on appeal. Link

Why should anyone believe the writings or opinions of a man who has actually been convicted of false testimony?

This is not just hearsay and acquisitions of being vague like the ones leveled at the McCanns. This is an ACTUAL CONVICTION.

You have to seriously question the judgement of those people who on one hand use evidence collected by the Portuguese to make spurious claims while at the same time reject the ruling of a Portuguese court that Amaral is guilty of LYING, something the McCanns have not.

However guilty the Cipriano's may be you have to question the integrity of a man willing to lie in order to help his own colleagues avoid torture charges (which they were cleared of anyway).

On this matter you have to first of all ask yourself:

1. Why would he feel the need to submit false testimony to help cover for 3 of his colleagues charged with torture of Cipriano? Especially since they were supposedly innocent? - As several people here have pointed out in relation to the McCann case if somebody is innocent they have no reason to lie, just tell it like it happened and you will automatically proven innocent. Right?

2. If he was concerned for this colleagues welfare and gave false testimony in a foolish attempt to help them then you must also ask yourself what this show's about the mans judgement? Since this would demonstrate an inability to think clearly. Something you would expect a police inspector to be able to do, especially an inspector in charge of major cases such as the McCann one.

3. What does it show about his respect for the law?

These are serious issues of credibility hanging over this man. He was caught this time but who's to say that he has not done this kind of thing before? His followers (and I say followers because it borders on devotion) need to answer these questions but I doubt that they can.

Why support a convicted liar??

steddyeddy

mconigol wrote: »

You really have to question this man's motives.

Why the special interest in the McCann case?
Has he successfully solved 100% of cases ever assigned to him?
If not, then why did he decided to peruse this one specifically?
How trustworthy is his?

This man was recently convicted for submitting false testimony in the Leonor Cipriano case and received an 18 month sentence (suspended) which was also rejected by the Court of Appeal of Evora. Link

Why should anyone believe the writings or opinions of a man who has actually been convicted of false testimony?

This is not just hearsay and acquisitions of being vague like the ones leveled at the McCanns. This is an ACTUAL CONVICTION.

You have to seriously question the judgement of those people who on one hand use evidence collected by the Portuguese to make spurious claims while at the same time reject the ruling of a Portuguese court that Amaral is guilty of LYING, something the McCanns have not.

However guilty the Cipriano's may be you have to question the integrity of a man willing to lie in order to help his own colleagues avoid torture charges (which they were cleared of anyway).

On this matter you have to first of all ask yourself:

1. Why would he feel the need to submit false testimony to help cover for 3 of his colleagues charged with torture of Cipriano? Especially since they were supposedly innocent? - As several people here have pointed out in relation to the McCann case if somebody is innocent they have no reason to lie, just tell it like it happened and you will automatically proven innocent. Right?

2. If he was concerned for this colleagues welfare and gave false testimony in a foolish attempt to help them then you must also ask yourself what this show's about the mans judgement? Since this would demonstrate an inability to think clearly. Something you would expect a police inspector to be able to do, especially an inspector in charge of major cases such as the McCann one.

3. What does it show about his respect for the law?

These are serious issues of credibility hanging over this man. He was caught this time but who's to say that he has not done this kind of thing before? His followers (and I say followers because it borders on devotion) need to answer these questions but I doubt that they can.

Why support a convicted liar??

Even if you question his motives it does not change the reality and implausibilty of the portrayed events around the mcanns.

123balltv

What kind of monsters leave their babies on their own in a strange country in a strange apartment with unlocked doors and goes off to dinner with friends. Loving, caring responsible parents I dont think so.

Hookah

I read a book on sniffer dogs and they often react to cues by the handler, ie. he/she expects to find something and the dog reacts to this, so I wouldn't place a whole lot of faith in a dog wagging his tail at a car boot.

I don't the ins and outs of the case, but the fact that the couple are still together suggests they had nothing to do with it, as no marriage would survive the strain of one suspecting the other.

mconigol

steddyeddy wrote: »

Even if you question his motives it does not change the reality and implausibilty of the portrayed events around the mcanns.

Don't avoid the questions.