Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

thebigbiffo

sham69 wrote: »

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

(slightly) contradictory statements from such a large group of people about a traumatic event such as this are to be expected. in fact it's a virtual certainty they'd be contradictory considiring that prior to 10pm they were just a group of friends shooting the s'hit and relaxing on holidays with a few drinks and the next they were dealing with a kipnapped child of one of the group.

but as i've said already - i think any deliberate misleading was done to cover for themselves on either of 2 things; the first the possibility that they were drugging their children, or knew the McCanns were, and were covering or second they were simply trying to paint themselves in a better light...because lets face it - you're going to know pretty much immediately that people aren't going to be too sympathetic to the parents of children who've been left by themslves half the night...and many night before.

sham69

I agree with you completely on the drugging issue but I do think that Madeline had an accident due to the drugging, fell , hit her head and died due to the fall.
I believe that Gerry got rid of the body that night and it was indeed him that was seen by the smith family with the child in his arms.

AskMyChocolate

thebullkf wrote: »

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

No, they wouldn't. They'd turn like that. *snaps fingers*. The headline would be "How our trust was betrayed!" With a four page spread on how The loyal Sun readers were "duped" by these "evil monsters".

The toilet-traders who produce this "journalism" are utterly valueless, and beneath contempt. But they're not stupid and they know how the mob mentality works.

mconigol

maebee wrote: »

From February 2010:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic6422.html

.

But they never did ask.

Happy to have the case reopened if there new information available. What's the problem there.

I have little time for any "source" that puts a spin on videos like this. For example the transcript says:

Portuguese Journalist: You are asking Portuguese people to come forward, what do you have to say if they ask you 'why are you not re-opening the case'?

Portuguese Man's voice: That is the question, that's the one.

Gerry McCann: [looks startled]

Kate McCann: [answers another journalist question - unintelligible]


Gerry McCann: We be delighted if the case was re-opened, we have no problem with that, but what we need is real investigation, not this, not dismissal...

Looks startled? :rolleyes:

thebigbiffo

sham69 wrote: »

I agree with you completely on the drugging issue but I do think that Madeline had an accident due to the drugging, fell , hit her head and died due to the fall.
I believe that Gerry got rid of the body that night and it was indeed him that was seen by the smith family with the child in his arms.

nah i just can't believe that.

how could they have had the time to compose themselves after finding her dead, dispose of a body (so well), still be seen by CCTV to be having a normal evening at the restaurant with friends and then pull off the most convincing acting job possible.

no way did they dispose of the body. it would have been found anyway unless he'd time to charter a boat, get out to sea, weight down and wrap the body really well and then get back to resort to act like like nothing had happened.

it's far more likely that witness just saw another man with another child...it was a family resort after all.

maebee

The point is they could have asked for the case to be re-opened. As far as I can remember, they had 6 months to do so after the case was shelved in Sept. 2008 but they did not. A re-opening would have meant a return to Portugal for a re-construction, which they had already refused to do.

http://www.zimbio.com/Gerry+McCann's+Blog/articles/IJr_tHsGVXn/Gerry+McCann+will+delighted+case+reopened

K-9

sham69 wrote: »

I agree with you completely on the drugging issue but I do think that Madeline had an accident due to the drugging, fell , hit her head and died due to the fall.
I believe that Gerry got rid of the body that night and it was indeed him that was seen by the smith family with the child in his arms.

The only thing is it doesn't give him much time to get rid of the body. The group have him leaving the bar at about 9.00pm and only away for a short while.

AskMyChocolate

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

Cheers for that chief. I stand corrected. Does that mean that even if the McCanns had a change of heart and agreed to co-operate with the authorities,and answer the questions that they have up until now refused to answer, that the authorities are no longer willing to give any more time to the case?

racso1975

In my head the cuddly toy is strange and cant get my head around it:

-Was it washed, as kate was so distraught and washed it as she might normally do so it would be nice and fresh for madeline's return

- was it washed to hid evidence (while the point about it possibly containing trace samples of old blood is very vslid surely fresher blood could of been identified)

-Why did the abductor not just take it too. Surely it would make sense to have a "comforter" for when the child got upset/distraught that might calm her down as opposed to putting it high on a shelve that blatantly points at an intrusuion

sham69

thebigbiffo wrote: »

nah i just can't believe that.

how could they have had the time to compose themselves after finding her dead, dispose of a body (so well), still be seen by CCTV to be having a normal evening at the restaurant with friends and then pull off the most convincing acting job possible.

no way did they dispose of the body. it would have been found anyway unless he'd time to charter a boat, get out to sea, weight down and wrap the body really well and then get back to resort to act like like nothing had happened.

it's far more likely that witness just saw another man with another child...it was a family resort after all.

I doubt it was another man with a child, very coincidental.
Not sure , maybe they hid the body and disposed of it later.
Which would explain the cadaver in the rental car.
Who knows but they are hiding something thats for sure.

TheZohanS

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.

I would imagine the media would be in constant contact with the McCanns especially around the anniversary of her daughters disappearance and birthday. Can you imagine a journalists response if they offered to run a piece on their daughter on either of these occasions and the McCanns said "No".

Kate McCann was helped with the book by none other than J.K. Rowling,

Source.

I suppose it's apt that Kate McCann sought the help of someone that writes fantasy novels for a living.

maebee

Kate McCann was helped with the book by none other than J.K. Rowling,

Incorrect.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/rowling-to-demolish-1631m-house-to-expand-garden-2266450.html

Yesterday it emerged that the author had given a helping hand to Kate McCann, the mother of the missing eight-year-old, Madeleine, with her account of the disappearance in Portugal four years ago. But Rowling denied reports that she had written the book which is due to be published next month.

In a statement a spokesman for the author said: "While JK Rowling has been a long-term family supporter, her only part in bringing the book to publication has been in supporting the fact that her literary agent was also representing Kate. Beyond this, she has not been involved in any aspect of the writing, editing or publication of the book."

This book is Kate McCann's own work of fiction, imo.

Show Time

bad2dabone wrote: »

The child deserves sympathy. The parents, deserve a trial to be honest.

If Gerry and Kate happened to be two chavs you can be sure they would have faced a court of law and would have had their two other children put into care.

CK2010

Im just wondering did they give a reason as to why they instantly thought she had been taken? like as opposed to just wandering out of the room, was it to do with the windows/shutters/doors being locked or unlocked or what was the reason?
im just curious as to their reason for this because if i left my daughter alone and came back to see her gone my first thought would be that she wandered off rather than abduction..

AskMyChocolate

Heh gang. I asked this before, but nobody seems to know. Does anyone know what either the Paynes' or the McCanns' reaction/response was to the statements of the Gaspars (if any)?

Also, is there any info on how the Tapas 9 came to know each other? Who were friends first etc.? Who organised the holiday? That sort of thing.

123balltv

Show Time wrote: »

If Gerry and Kate happened to be two chavs you can be sure they would have faced a court of law and would have had their two other children put into care.

'one law for the rich and another for the poor'
lets face they did wrong that night leaving babies alone in an unlocked
room thick, stupid parents they caused it whether they killed her or not

maebee

CK2010 wrote: »

Im just wondering did they give a reason as to why they instantly thought she had been taken? like as opposed to just wandering out of the room, was it to do with the windows/shutters/doors being locked or unlocked or what was the reason?
im just curious as to their reason for this because if i left my daughter alone and came back to see her gone my first thought would be that she wandered off rather than abduction..

No, they never gave a reason. Kate said:

Wednesday, March 23, 2011Kate McCann

"I know what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." ?

She has never told what the other circumstances were, even after her "Arguida" status was lifted.

They refused to consider any other scenario other than abduction, even though Madeleine was a known poor sleeper. Kate's mother said so in an interview to the BBC a few weeks after the event.

Show Time

123balltv wrote: »

'one law for the rich and another for the poor'
lets face they did wrong that night leaving babies alone in an unlocked
room thick, stupid parents they caused it whether they killed her or not

I am involved in a sports club and the rule is simple "DON'T LET THE KIDS ON THEIR OWN"

If they are guilty of anything then it is of being bad parents.

AskMyChocolate

CK2010 wrote: »

Im just wondering did they give a reason as to why they instantly thought she had been taken? like as opposed to just wandering out of the room, was it to do with the windows/shutters/doors being locked or unlocked or what was the reason?
im just curious as to their reason for this because if i left my daughter alone and came back to see her gone my first thought would be that she wandered off rather than abduction..

Possibly knew that she was too heavily sedated to wander off anywhere on her own.

K-9

CK2010 wrote: »

Im just wondering did they give a reason as to why they instantly thought she had been taken? like as opposed to just wandering out of the room, was it to do with the windows/shutters/doors being locked or unlocked or what was the reason?
im just curious as to their reason for this because if i left my daughter alone and came back to see her gone my first thought would be that she wandered off rather than abduction..

True and from Fiona Payne's testimony:

Fiona says that one of the nights at dinner Kate told her about Madeline asking, "where were you Mummy when me and sean cried last night?",
she says Kate was concerned and was asking Fiona's opinion about their decision to keep the doors unlocked. She said to Fiona,
"Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’,?"
Gerry kept reassuring Kate "It'll be fine, they'll be fine", and Fiona herself admits that she said to Kate, "I'm sure they'll be fine"
Fiona Payne was the only parent that night with a baby monitor at dinner with her. As far as I know, all their apartments were close by each other, so I do not know why the other families did not have baby monitors with them.

It seems strange that they would assume she was kidnapped, especially when there is evidence that the patio door was open and the blinds weren't and couldn't have been forced.

I think they initially said she was kidnapped mostly due to guilt and denial that their own negligence played a part. She could very easily have wandered and had an accident or been picked up on the street, the only thing odd about that is the lack of eye witness statements of seeing her, only one or 2 vague reports.

maebee

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Heh gang. I asked this before, but nobody seems to know. Does anyone know what either the Paynes' or the McCanns' reaction/response was to the statements of the Gaspars (if any)?

.

Neither the Paynes nor the McCanns have made a public comment on the Gaspars' statements. These statements became knowledge when the official police files were released online and there has only been minimal mention of them in the mainstream British media.

CK2010

thats really strange.

i wouldve thought madeleine getting up and wandering out to find her missing mum and dad would be alot more of a possibility than abduction.

especially considering the whole 'why didnt you come in when we were crying?' question Kate said she asked her the day before. mum never came in when she cried so she decided to go look for her instead of waiting for someone who never came the last time she cried.

i know that even if that was the case there is still the issue of where she is now but it seems like a much more plausable scenario than someone sneaking into their room and taking her and carrying her away unnoticed.
maybe an opportunistic abduction- someone saw her wandering and took her. explains why theres no evidence in the appartment.
although i guess someone wouldve noticed a child wandering alone before an abductor would. maybe not.

wilson10

Just came across this thread, only read the first 3 or 4 pages and it's obvious that the majority of contributors don't have kids.

Even those who accept that Maddie was taken are so crass and uncaring in their clever statements that I find it really offensive.

Those who don't believe are so sure of their theories that you'd think they were there, on the scene.

ISDW

sham69 wrote: »

I doubt it was another man with a child, very coincidental.
Not sure , maybe they hid the body and disposed of it later.
Which would explain the cadaver in the rental car.
Who knows but they are hiding something thats for sure.

Yep, the media was filming their every move, the police were watching their every move, but this criminal mastermind managed to go and retrieve the body and move it without anybody else seeing him do it.

Show Time wrote: »

If Gerry and Kate happened to be two chavs you can be sure they would have faced a court of law and would have had their two other children put into care.

Proof? Baby P anybody? (again)

123balltv wrote: »

'one law for the rich and another for the poor'
lets face they did wrong that night leaving babies alone in an unlocked
room thick, stupid parents they caused it whether they killed her or not

No, its one law. But, maybe due to their intelligence, they knew how the media worked, so got lawyers and PR people involved because they could see how everything would be twisted if they didn't - how ironic.

Washing the cuddly toy may seem strange to some people, but even though a lot of posters on here seem to think that Kate McCann is an unfeeling bitch, maybe she didn't know what on earth she was doing for a few days/weeks? Maybe it was just what she did regularly? Or, maybe if the suggestion had been made that an abductor had moved the toy, she didn't want to have contact with something that someone that took her child had touched? So, she washed them off it? Two plausible reasons why she could have washed the toy.

I just can't believe the vitriole and hatred on this thread and people 'knowing' what happened when all they've ever seen are media reports and reports that the public were allowed to see. Yet the police from two countries didn't have enough evidence to charge anybody.

Whichever poster it was that said it WAS Gerry with Madeleine in his arms, who else could it have been. Seriously, it was a family holiday resort.

dark crystal

optogirl wrote: »

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

Then the argument could be made, why didn't the parents walk or drive them to school instead. Doesn't matter - all abducted children are taken when the parents aren't with them, no matter how short a period that may be. As much as we'd say we would, there are always instances where we won't be watching them.

I'm not for one minute condoning what the McCanns did that night, but I don't think they were evil monsters for doing so. They were on holiday with friends, had some dinner with them and thought checking on the children once every half hour would be adequate. Back at home, I'd be fairly sure they would never do such a thing.

Turns out they were wrong - terribly wrong. I doubt in their wildest dreams they ever suspected she might be taken from her bed and I bet they wish they could go back to that night every waking second.

Hauling them up for neglect would be pointless and cruel. It was one night - a night they will be paying for for the rest of their lives.

CK2010

dark crystal wrote: »

Hauling them up for neglect would be pointless and cruel. It was one night - a night they will be paying for for the rest of their lives.

i thought they did it a few nights of the holiday? and im guessing would more than likely have kept doing it had this not happened. hopefully though it will stop others from doing the same.

btw, i somewhat agree with you, but at the same time if the child hadn't gone missing and had ended up dying/injured as a result of being left alone would you still feel the same?

lcrcboy

I find the whole case to be very strange, and I just have this gut feeling we as the public are not getting the whole truth, there is just something about the McCanns that is very strange. I could be completely wrong but since pretty much the start of the case I always felt something was not right.

K-9

wilson10 wrote: »

Just came across this thread, only read the first 3 or 4 pages and it's obvious that the majority of contributors don't have kids.

Even those who accept that Maddie was taken are so crass and uncaring in their clever statements that I find it really offensive.

Those who don't believe are so sure of their theories that you'd think they were there, on the scene.

Just an aside, I can never understand this "do you have kids?" line thing.

It's as if bad people just automatically change once they have children!

Another extension of it is "are you a mother?" as if mothers all act and care equally. Funnily enough it is being used against the mother in this case.

AskMyChocolate

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Heh gang. I asked this before, but nobody seems to know. Does anyone know what either the Paynes' or the McCanns' reaction/response was to the statements of the Gaspars (if any)?

Also, is there any info on how the Tapas 9 came to know each other? Who were friends first etc.? Who organised the holiday? That sort of thing.

Also, does anyone know who the ISP/Telecom/Credit card providers were?

And who had the authority to requisition these records for the Tapas 9? Was it the Portuguese or British Police?

dark crystal

CK2010 wrote: »

i thought they did it a few nights of the holiday? and im guessing would more than likely have kept doing it had this not happened. hopefully though it will stop others from doing the same.

btw, i somewhat agree with you, but at the same time if the child hadn't gone missing and had ended up dying/injured as a result of being left alone would you still feel the same?

I honestly would. I think most people can tell the really bad parents from the ones who make parenting mistakes. It is a bad mistake and one that may have averted tragedy for sure, but laying into them and calling for neglect trials and the like really would be targetting the wrong people, in my opinion.

I believe they are already suffering immeasurably for the mistakes they made during that holiday.

By the way, I agree with you that I hope it stops other parents from making the same mistake.