Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AskMyChocolate

Super post there Acorn. Thanks for that. I'd have to say I'm completely mystified. The whole thing sounds completely "off" and I have no more idea what happened than I did when I started reading this thread. The only thing I could say for certain is that it seems not one of them is fit to look after a cactus, never mind a child, and your wan Jane Tanner seems like an appalling human being. A confirmed liar and the sort of person who leaves her sick child alone without a babysitter while she goes out to dinner with her boyfriend to boot. Charming individuals. Made for each other.

And if Russell is Evie's father, then he's as big a cnut as she is.

ceadaoin.

Aishae wrote: »

thats whats been reported yes.

There is a poster for the book at the train station where I work. It says at the bottom that all royalties will go to the Madeleine Fund, not all the proceeds. So technically Kate McCann is not making a personal profit from the book.

sham69

Fantastic post little acorn.
I was going to do the same myself but glad you did:)

I do believe that the whole group has something to hide and possibly covered for each other.
I don't think for one minute that the McCanns killed madeline but may have covered up an accident.
What happened to the smith family that were on holiday in the same area and gave evidence along the lines that they saw someone fitting Gerry's profile running with a child in his arms between 9 and 9:30 on the night in question?
Will we ever know the truth?

_feedback_

No matter what you think about the case, this is one interesting thread!

sham69

the funny thing is that the case has kind of been forgotten.
If it wasnt for the anniversary and the late late appearance would we be discussing it?

I find it hard to believe that the case was closed , end of.
Surely to god if us mere boardsies can see the holes in the testimony , portugals and britains finest can?

Or do they want to....

maebee

sham69 wrote: »

Fantastic post little acorn.
I was going to do the same myself but glad you did:)

I do believe that the whole group has something to hide and possibly covered for each other.
I don't think for one minute that the McCanns killed madeline but may have covered up an accident.
What happened to the smith family that were on holiday in the same area and gave evidence along the lines that they saw someone fitting Gerry's profile running with a child in his arms between 9 and 9:30 on the night in question?
Will we ever know the truth?

Smith Family statements:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic59.html

This bit sounds a bit fishy:

He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family.

maebee

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/05/kate-mccann-book-may-not-have-done-her.html

ciarak7511

what is wrong with you people? Why woudl you think they are involved int eh disappearance of their daughter and put themselves through this. The reason they were not charged with anything is because there is no evidence.

maebee

ciarak7511 wrote: »

what is wrong with you people? Why woudl you think they are involved int eh disappearance of their daughter and put themselves through this. The reason they were not charged with anything is because there is no evidence.

The British police and the Portuguese police think otherwise. Please read the Official files. Then when you have heard both sides of the story, you can make your mind up.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

AskMyChocolate

sham69 wrote: »

the funny thing is that the case has kind of been forgotten.
If it wasnt for the anniversary and the late late appearance would we be discussing it?

I find it hard to believe that the case was closed , end of.
Surely to god if us mere boardsies can see the holes in the testimony , portugals and britains finest can?

Or do they want to....

Apparently, although I'm willing to be corrected on this,according to the original inspector in charge of the case, the file could easily be re-opened
by a simple letter to the Portuguese prosecutor but the McCanns won't write asking for this even though it would only cost them the price of a stamp.

thebullkf

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

The headline on some paper today was I assume, a quote from her book, "I couldn't make love to Gerry"

makes me sick

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

The morons that buy those rags because of headlines like that should be fućking ashamed of themselves!

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

"Never mind the missing child, how is the McCanns sex life these days?"

Very odd that anybody would care about or even focus on the couple's sex life. Disgusting reporting.

I agree, anyone that buys that " irish " paper is a fucking moron.

Gutter journalism.

Retarded Clowns buying it.:mad:

CK2010

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Apparently, although I'm willing to be corrected on this,according to the original inspector in charge of the case, the file could easily be re-opened
by a simple letter to the Portuguese prosecutor but the McCanns won't write asking for this even though it would only cost them the price of a stamp.

well tbh the way they handled the case wasn't exactly ideal- delays, hasty accusations etc. so i dont know if i can blame the McCanns for not having much faith in the Portugese officials. maybe they think its better to do it their way..?

K-9

ciarak7511 wrote: »

what is wrong with you people? Why woudl you think they are involved int eh disappearance of their daughter and put themselves through this. The reason they were not charged with anything is because there is no evidence.

It's an unsolved case.

maebee

thebullkf wrote: »

I agree, anyone that buys that " irish " paper is a fucking moron.

Gutter journalism.

Retarded Clowns buying it.:mad:

I agree. It IS gutter journalism but it's Kate McCann's gutter journalism. This is what she wrote in her book. We do not need to know about her sex life. We need her to answer the questions she refused to answer.

NTMK

ciarak7511 wrote: »

what is wrong with you people? Why woudl you think they are involved int eh disappearance of their daughter and put themselves through this. The reason they were not charged with anything is because there is no evidence.

• They've refused point blank to cooperate with police
• There is no evidence of and intruder
• Two highly trained sniffer dogs indicated the had something to do with
• Their storys have changed a handful of times as have their witnesis
• Refuse Drug test on their other kids until whatever may have been their system was out

So tell me what about the above lines doesnt stink of suspicious activity
I dont think they killed her i think an accident happen while they were off neglecting their kids and hid the body and cleaned up

tell me on what evidence do you think they're innocent?

Tipsy McSwagger

Cant understand why she would wash the cuddly toy. People don't even disturb a loved ones room for years after they die but she gets rid of Madeline's smell and risks damaging the toy in the process.

sham69

ciarak7511 wrote: »

what is wrong with you people? Why woudl you think they are involved int eh disappearance of their daughter and put themselves through this. The reason they were not charged with anything is because there is no evidence.

Have you read any of this thread?
Have you read the smith family testimony?
Have you seen interviews with the McCanns?

It's as clear as day that something is not right with this case but for some reason the police don't want to know.
Why won't the McCanns get the case reopened?
Come on , are people really bought by their act?

K-9

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Cant understand why she would wash the cuddly toy. People don't even disturb a loved ones room for years after they die but she gets rid of Madeline's smell and risks damaging the toy in the process.

Always found that strange, that was before the cadaver dog evidence. It was supposed to be up high so the abductor would have touched it. Something so sentimental and she goes and washes it!

thebullkf

maebee wrote: »

I agree. It IS gutter journalism but it's Kate McCann's gutter journalism. This is what she wrote in her book. We do not need to know about her sex life. We need her to answer the questions she refused to answer.

That rag isn't concerned with 'Truth' , if she was found guilty in the morning they'd be printing some other nonsense.

thebigbiffo

I've read quite a bit on this and just want to give my opinion.

yes I believe the group were covering for the McCanns and themselves, and I believe they were covering for the fact that they used sedatives at times to get the kids to sleep soundly. That's the extent of it, everything else is a cut and dry case of kidnapping. The twins sleeping through hours of commotion and being moved around in the middle of it convinces me of that and the 'hole' in their stories probably initially came from how freaked out each individual was as the first statements were given and naturally changed under continued questioning.

Personally, I think a staff member of the resort they were staying in was involved. Someone in there realised that this group of doctors would put their young children to bed every night, leave them alone and go across the complex for dinner and drinks and were very rarely disturbed by them. They had a routine they stuck too; that every half an hour someone checked on them and didn't return for another half hour. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that when Kate or Gerry returned back to the table someone could let themselves in, take the child (whether through the window or patio) hop in a car and be gone 50 miles before the s'hit really started hitting the fan. All the speculation as to the cuddly toy, the boot of the car etc have their own plausible explanations.

I'm just convinced that the simplest explanation here is what actually happened; someone in that resort saw children being left by themselves for long periods of time and either conspired with others or acted by themselves in abducting the child, probably for a relatively local paedophile ring (the most common reason for child kidnappings afaik).

I actually thought at the time that they would catch someone for this quite quickly due to the fact the resort was a relatively enclosed compound with what was probably a transient, unskilled workforce from varied backgrounds.

There's obviously loads of questions unanswered but this is what I think.

The McCanns are not entirely blameless as I'm sure they know themselves but I just dont see them being directly involved in dissapearing the body.

Whatever happened, God help that little girl.

_feedback_

thebigbiffo wrote: »

All the speculation as to the cuddly toy, the boot of the car etc have their own plausible explanations.

The cuddly toy being washed doesn't really have a plausible explanation though!

It just wouldn't happen.

Sit there for hours clinging on to it like it's all you have left - YES.

Throwing it in the wash - NO.

optogirl

dark crystal wrote: »

Look at every case of an abducted child ever recorded. You could make the case that every one of their parents were negligent in some way.

W

no you couldn't. Children get snatched walking to school - quite different from being alone in a house as a toddler

mconigol

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Apparently, although I'm willing to be corrected on this,according to the original inspector in charge of the case, the file could easily be re-opened
by a simple letter to the Portuguese prosecutor but the McCanns won't write asking for this even though it would only cost them the price of a stamp.

Not so. The Portuguese attorney generals office said back in December that there was no new credible facts that would warrant reopening the case. The inspector is wrong. (shockingly)

http://www.dn.pt/especiais/interior.aspx?content_id=1734916&especial=Caso%20Maddie&seccao=SOCIEDADE

optogirl

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

I felt so sorry for them 4 years ago. But not now. How can a child go missing into thin air? With the coverage they got, someone, somewhere surely would have found her within a couple of hours.

If I had a missing kid. I dont have kids but if my dog with missing, I wouldn't spend that fund on paying the mortage. I'd keep every penny on finding the kid.

How did they smuggle a dead child out of the apartment in a holiday destination? Throw the body into a black sack and into the boot? How did anyone not see them?

I dont believe them. They should lock them up and throw away the key.

without evidence or trial? Come on now...

_feedback_

mconigol wrote: »

Not so. The Portuguese attorney generals office said back in December that there was no new credible facts that would warrant reopening the case. The inspector is wrong. (shockingly)

http://www.dn.pt/especiais/interior.aspx?content_id=1734916&especial=Caso%20Maddie&seccao=SOCIEDADE

That is in Portugese - here is the translation:

The Attorney General's Office (PGR) considers that there are no facts "new, credible and relevant" to reopen the investigation related to Madeleine McCann.

In a reply sent to the agency Lusa, the RMP notes that "has repeatedly stated that the investigation may be reopened if new facts come to light, credible and relevant." But "so far met only opinions, theories in the abstract, ramblings, reasoning and unfounded publicity maneuver, which is not enough to reopen the investigation," reads the note.

A telegram from the U.S. embassy in London, dated September 2007 and released on Monday, says the disappearance of British child in May of that year, noting it was the British police who had gathered evidence against the parents.

AskMyChocolate

ciarak7511 wrote: »

what is wrong with you people? Why woudl you think they are involved int eh disappearance of their daughter and put themselves through this. The reason they were not charged with anything is because there is no evidence.

I would have to agree, that while a lot of stuff seems suspicious to me, I can't see why someone with something to hide would try to keep the case in the limelight. Unless it's a double-bluff, it definitely argues their innocence. But again, as I've said many times, I just don't know what to think. Too much stuff just doesn't make sense.

mconigol

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I would have to agree, that while a lot of stuff seems suspicious to me, I can't see why someone with something to hide would try to keep the case in the limelight. Unless it's a double-bluff, it definitely argues their innocence. But again, as I've said many times, I just don't know what to think. Too much stuff just doesn't make sense.

Like I've said before. Either way it is a good thing. If they did it then they could potentially contribute to their own downfall. If they didn't do it then they could potentially contribute to finding the person/people responsible.

thebigbiffo

elviscostello wrote: »

The cuddly toy being washed doesn't really have a plausible explanation though!

It just wouldn't happen.

Sit there for hours clinging on to it like it's all you have left - YES.

Throwing it in the wash - NO.

as i said, i believe they are covering up something and that something is them using a sedative to help the kids sleep.

she may have washed the toy to get rid of any saliva which may have proved positive for a drug.

maybe this has been covered before - but how would that toy hold any evidence of their guilt or wrongdoing other than the theory outlined above? they had access to it every day - any traces of blood etc would still not indicate wrongdoing on their behalf as kids that age are constantly nicking and grazing themselves.

how can anybody seriously believe these people could have dinner with friends, keep up a pretence of checking the kids and having a good time and all the while be planning and executing the (frankly, brilliantly done job) of disposing of the body - not to mention then doing the best acting job imaginable?

as i said - they are covering up their own failings, whatever they are. to think they could do all the above is frankly ridiculous given the events on the night.

sham69

but nobody knows the events of the night due to the contradictory statements?
Only the 9 people at that table know what went on.

maebee

From February 2010:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic6422.html

Unknown British journalist G: Gerry, have you formally asked anyone to start a review?

Gerry McCann: We are happy to ask now

.

But they never did ask.