Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

El Weirdo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...people are not sent to the gallows because of their demeanour and disposition. The fact that somebody 'doesn't like the look of somebody' or thinks that 'they have a case to answer' or 'she is a cold bitch, your honour' is not admissable in a court of law.

Please point me to where I have said that they are guilty because I don't like the look of them. Actually, please point me to where I have said they are guilty.

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: See above, if the Portugese police believe they have a case to answer let them arrest, speculating on an internet forum is pointless.

Maybe the McCanns should ask the Portuguese police to re-open the case. A letter is all it would take. They were happy to write an open letter to someone that should have absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The implication of what is being said is that these people where 'bad parents and therefore where capable of killing or covering up their childs deaths. Which is tenuous BS.
My point is that they made a mistake of judgement in relation to the children on that holiday. That is all it was-a mistake.....we have all made them.
Kate McCann by her own admission 'persecuted' herself for years after because of that mistake. But of course the 'double daring forum do-gooders' who never made a 'mistake' want blood.
By criticising them for making a 'mistake' and labeling that mistake crimminal negligence implies that there was something extraordinary about their judgement call.....there wasn't, people make the same calls all the time. In this instance evil was waiting to do it's bidding. That happens all the time too, just not as often, fortunately.

Yes, we have all made mistakes, but dressing up what the McCanns did as "just a mistake" is a little bit of an understatement.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I pride myself on not having read one single line of tabloid bile about this case. And I suggest that others might like themselves better and be a bit more humane as human beings if they gave up the purient interest in stuff like this.

It seems to me that the tabloid press, especially the Sun are quite happy go along with their story. It is exactly that tabloid press that the McCanns seem so happy to hawk their book to. Rags like the Sun love it because a little blonde-haired, blue-eyed daughter of white, middle-class doctors going missing sells papers.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no idea if they are guilty or innocent, I assume they are innocent until somebody brings a charge against them and that charge is fairly and justly tried in an impartial court of law.

I have no idea for certain, either. I have already stated that.

As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, do you believe OJ Simpson was really innocent?

mariaf24

I saw them on the late late and the main thing that struck me was their defiance and how they continuously blamed other people. To me they don't seem at all guilty for leaving 3 children alone, they are always justifying it 'We were only a minute away', 'We checked every half an hour', 'We thought they were safe' and how they imply that many parents do this, as if it's normal or acceptable. Any parent (but you would imagine doctors in particular) should know what can go wrong in a half an hour, when my own little one was that age i would think of possible choking, vomiting, sleep walking, falling out of bed, fire etc etc...Kate then tried to shift the blame on to the waiting staff who wrote on the journal that the children were alone... So it's ok to leave them alone, just don't tell anyone
I think people would have so much more sympathy for them if they admitted they were terribly wrong, that it was inexcusable and that they let their 3 children down.

I think Kate looks like a broken woman and of course i do feel terrible for her, you can see the grief in her face. Gerry is hard to figure out, he seems to have almost become aggressive over the years in how he answers questions etc.
I do hope someday they will know what happened to Madeleine....

AckwelFoley

a puerto rican did it, blood money, catch me if you mccann, clueless cluedo for ah, comin' in yo windows, conspiracy theories, csi boards, excess baggage, gerry has a peadosmile, gossipey aul wans, honey i murdered the kid, murder she wrote, narrowminded irish, pedobear, rapist in lincoln park, they ate her!, we gone find you, wheeliebin bin gone

some of the thread tags ...

where do you come up with them

maebee

I doubt they were checking every 30 minutes. Mrs Fenn's statement to the police:

Witness statement of Pamela Fenn PJ Files

Processo IX, pages 2412 to 2414

Date: 2007/08/20
Time: 15H30

Comes before the Court as a witness.

Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, LIEVE VAN LOOCK.

Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says that she has lived in the apartment since 2003, which is located on the upper floor, immediately above the room from which the child disappeared.

She states that on the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted "Daddy, Daddy", the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23H45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.

As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

Little Acorn

Kess73 wrote: »

The GNR spokesperson, Costa Cabral, is the one who stood before the media and said it was 23:50 that the call to the PJ was logged at.


The first call to the GNR in Lagos was at 22:50, and they have a recorded arrival time of 12 minutes for the rural patrol car, which flies in the face of the hour the McCanns claimed it took the police to arrive from the call made. They also have it on record that there was no comment about the hotel not making a call when asked and that this claim did not surface until about the time the McCanns were made suspects.

The GNR also state that they had to remove literally dozens of people from inside the apartment and around the entrance of it and that it made getting information very difficult at first as the parents kept talking to the people there rather than the GNR guys.

It is also in the GNR records of how the sniffer dogs were requested and sent, and also the warnings sent to border stations in Portugal and Sapin and also of the warnings sent to all airports in Portugal and Spain as well as to ports.

There are also recorded files on how helicopters were used from first light as well as search teams.

The McCanns have claimed that there were no road blocks and no "shutting of borders" and said so again last night on tv.



Another thing that stood out for me just now as I was reading some of the media interviews with friends and family, in the Guardian archives from 10 to 12 hours after the child was found to be missing, that the McCanns said they rang back home straight away, is that a Gill Renwick claims the McCanns told her that the shutter was forced open and that the McCanns saw evidence of this and Gill Renwick said on GMTV that the times the children were checked at were 21:00 and then 22:00. No mention at all of the other checks that were brought up later.

Thanks very much Kess73, that has cleared a few things up for me!:)

So there wasn't a two hour gap from when Madeline went missing to when the police were called. The GNR police were called much sooner than the Judicial police. I'm glad that's sorted for me, because I couldn't understand how there ever could have been such a huge gap, without even another guest ringing the police.

This matches up with what they said about the GNR police being there at about 11pm.
Did the McCanns originally say that it took the police almost an hour to come from when the call was made because they believed that the call was made by the hotel after 10pm?
Because at the time Matthew says he did ask the hotel to call the police at that time, so he must have told the McCanns that he had done so.

Tonight they didn't say it took the police an hour, they said the call was logged at 22:40 [10 minutes out], and that the police were there by 11.

Regarding Matthew saying he asked the hotel to call the police at about 10:10, and that they failed to do so until about 10:40pm, have the hotel staff been questioned about this?
I mean it is plausible that the hotel receptionists thought that he was over reacting, and that Madeline was nearby somewhere.
They might just have rang their managers for advice, because all the Mark Warner management people then showed up before the police, and it was them who got the police rang.

If Matthew was lying about asking the hotel reception to ring the police after 10pm, would the hotel not have come out and said this? Is there cctv footage from the hotel reception, that proves he was there after 10pm?

I know that it says there was no comment made from Matthew at the time that the hotel didn't make the call, but he could have been unaware at the time that they hadn't called the police.
It was only after half an hour had passed and there was still no police that him and gerry went to reception again, wondering why the police hadn't arrived as they had been asked half an hour ago to ring them.
This is where Matthew in his later interviews, suspects that they must have just rang their management, because the Mark Warner people had all showed up and sorted the call to the police.

Now of course there could be lies here somewhere, but this is actually one part of their story that I do believe.
I believe they raised the alarm after 10pm.
I also think it's plausible that the hotel receptionist didn't immediately ring the police, before checking with his/her management.
They seemed to have thought that Matthew was overreacting, and that Madeline had just wandered off, and so probably didn't want the police showing up in their resort.
After half an hour had passed, and all the Mark Warner management had shown up, and seen that Madeline hadn't just turned up closeby, then I believe management rang the police at 22:50.

The fact that the report says that there was literally dozens of people around the apartment, does again make it harder to believe that they could somehow have been hiding a body at this stage.
If that happened, it would have to have happened at a much earlier time.

I agree with you though about the unfair and untruthful things that were said about the Portuguese Police. It seems they followed their procedures as best they possibly could, and it's not their fault if the crime scene had been trampled all over by the time they got there.

The shutter thing that you mention is another thing that pisses me off.
The shutter was proven by both hotel and police to having no evidence of ever being tampered with.
Even the McCanns spokesperson had to retract their claims about a "break in", and they admitted then that their patio door had been left unlocked. Gerry mentioned it again on the Late Late Show.
Why do they keep going back to this story, when it has already been proven, and their own spokesperson even admitted that their was no evidence of a break in?

The times that woman Jill Renwick might be on about are the approx 9pm check by Gerry, and the 10pm check by Kate because Matthew didn't actually check on Madeline at 9:30, because he didn't see her.
Although Gerry's sister Trish Cameron did say the day after that they were last checked at 9:30pm, and that the kids were all sound asleep.
So yeah, she seems to have abit of a mixed story there.

Little Acorn

maebee wrote: »

I doubt they were checking every 30 minutes. Mrs Fenn's statement to the police:

Witness statement of Pamela Fenn PJ Files

Processo IX, pages 2412 to 2414

Date: 2007/08/20
Time: 15H30

Comes before the Court as a witness.

Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, LIEVE VAN LOOCK.

Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says that she has lived in the apartment since 2003, which is located on the upper floor, immediately above the room from which the child disappeared.

She states that on the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted "Daddy, Daddy", the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23H45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.

As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

I also have some doubts about the 30 minute checks. I wish there had been cctv in the Tapas.

Happyman42

El Weirdo wrote: »

Please point me to where I have said that they are guilty because I don't like the look of them. Actually, please point me to where I have said they are guilty.

ffs, you said 'I am convinced they have something to answer'.
The authorities asked the questions, they found nothing to press charges over.
You are speculating based on a hunch. You are part of the muttering mob with stones behind their backs.

El Weirdo wrote: »

As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, do you believe OJ Simpson was really innocent?

:rolleyes::rolleyes: That is so transparent. I now know exactly where you are coming from.
In former times you and others here would have been burning witches at the stake!

iamwhoiam

Having seen that apartment and seeing its openess to the road and the vulnerablity of it , I wouldnt have left my credit cards in it exposed to theft . I wonder did the Mc Canns feel it was safe enough to leave their credit cards or cash on the table ?
And it was not 30 seconds way , what they failed to mention was that you cant go in a straight line from the Tapas bar to 5a , Yoiu have to go the the complex entrance , out on the road and in by means of the steps to the apartment .

If they are guilty of nothing else they are guilty of putting their own needs ahead of the safety of three very small children .

starryeye

My big fear is that some pervert like that Phillip Garrido or that murderer who murdered Sarah Payne could have taken Madeleine. You only have to catch a glance of these two disgusting men in a photo for a second before a cold shiver runs down the spine. Poor little child. I just hope she is found soon. Please God.

El Weirdo

Happyman42 wrote: »

ffs, you said 'I am convinced they have something to answer'.
The authorities asked the questions, they found nothing to press charges over.
You are speculating based on a hunch. You are part of the muttering mob with stones behind their backs.

I actually said:

El Weirdo wrote: »

I am convinced that they do have questions to answer.

What about the 40 odd questions the Portuguese police wanted to ask Kate before she headed back to England?

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes: That is so transparent. I now know exactly where you are coming from.
In former times you and others here would have been burning witches at the stake!

No, the point being made is that obviously guilty people aren't always convicted.

Before you jump on me, I am not saying that the McCanns are obviously guilty. But it happens.

The McCanns say that they wrote this book because they wanted to keep the disappearance of their daughter in the public mind. Well judging by this thread alone, they have certainly done that.

They have certainly got what they say they want and people are again talking and debating the case. It is inevitable that people are going to start asking questions and not entirely believe their version of events.

Kess73

Little Acorn wrote: »

Thanks very much Kess73, that has cleared a few things up for me!:)

So there wasn't a two hour gap from when Madeline went missing to when the police were called. The GNR police were called much sooner than the Judicial police. I'm glad that's sorted for me, because I couldn't understand how there ever could have been such a huge gap, without even another guest ringing the police.

This matches up with what they said about the GNR police being there at about 11pm.
Did the McCanns originally say that it took the police almost an hour to come from when the call was made because they believed that the call was made by the hotel after 10pm?
Because at the time Matthew says he did ask the hotel to call the police at that time, so he must have told the McCanns that he had done so.

Tonight they didn't say it took the police an hour, they said the call was logged at 22:40 [10 minutes out], and that the police were there by 11.

Regarding Matthew saying he asked the hotel to call the police at about 10:10, and that they failed to do so until about 10:40pm, have the hotel staff been questioned about this?
I mean it is plausible that the hotel receptionists thought that he was over reacting, and that Madeline was nearby somewhere.
They might just have rang their managers for advice, because all the Mark Warner management people then showed up before the police, and it was them who got the police rang.

If Matthew was lying about asking the hotel reception to ring the police after 10pm, would the hotel not have come out and said this? Is there cctv footage from the hotel reception, that proves he was there after 10pm?

I know that it says there was no comment made from Matthew at the time that the hotel didn't make the call, but he could have been unaware at the time that they hadn't called the police.
It was only after half an hour had passed and there was still no police that him and gerry went to reception again, wondering why the police hadn't arrived as they had been asked half an hour ago to ring them.
This is where Matthew in his later interviews, suspects that they must have just rang their management, because the Mark Warner people had all showed up and sorted the call to the police.

Now of course there could be lies here somewhere, but this is actually one part of their story that I do believe.
I believe they raised the alarm after 10pm.
I also think it's plausible that the hotel receptionist didn't immediately ring the police, before checking with his/her management.
They seemed to have thought that Matthew was overreacting, and that Madeline had just wandered off, and so probably didn't want the police showing up in their resort.
After half an hour had passed, and all the Mark Warner management had shown up, and seen that Madeline hadn't just turned up closeby, then I believe management rang the police at 22:50.

The fact that the report says that there was literally dozens of people around the apartment, does again make it harder to believe that they could somehow have been hiding a body at this stage.
If that happened, it would have to have happened at a much earlier time.

I agree with you though about the unfair and untruthful things that were said about the Portuguese Police. It seems they followed their procedures as best they possibly could, and it's not their fault if the crime scene had been trampled all over by the time they got there.

The shutter thing that you mention is another thing that pisses me off.
The shutter was proven by both hotel and police to having no evidence of ever being tampered with.
Even the McCanns spokesperson had to retract their claims about a "break in", and they admitted then that their patio door had been left unlocked. Gerry mentioned it again on the Late Late Show.
Why do they keep going back to this story, when it has already been proven, and their own spokesperson even admitted that their was no evidence of a break in?

The times that woman Jill Renwick might be on about are the approx 9pm check by Gerry, and the 10pm check by Kate because Matthew didn't actually check on Madeline at 9:30, because he didn't see her.Although Gerry's sister Trish Cameron did say the day after that they were last checked at 9:30pm, and that the kids were all sound asleep.
So yeah, she seems to have abit of a mixed story there.

The thing about Jill Remwick's comments is that she said them on live TV some 12 hours after the child was found to be missing, and she did so with only the McCann's version of the story. So on the GMTV show on Friday 4th May 2007 she stated clearly that the children were only left at 20:00 and then checked at 21:00 and 22:00.

She also said that the McCanns were positive of an abduction as the shutter were damaged from being forced open.

Other friends and family went on tv and gave interviews to the british media that day saying the same thing but also thowing in things about how the McCanns were distraught at having to wait ages for police and that they were furious that the police did not contact airports etc.

Now these family members, one of the Kate's mother, could only have been getting these "facts" from one source.

Just seems very strange that so many people were willing to go on tv and go on the attack with "facts" and then many of these facts got altered to add in new checking times, and then those checking times got altered further to the checkers having not seen the girl when they checked.

Plus the not contacting of airports etc was proven to be false yet the McCanns still mention about a lack of roadblocks and a lack of blocking borders.

Just seems very irresponsible for people in another country to be going to the media with claims while the investigation was only 12 hours or less old.


The broken shutter one is annoying as well. As that started out with them saying the shutter was forced and that it was damaged. Yet when the police first checked the shutter it was unopened as far as I know, and had no damage at all to it and no signs of being forced.

Then the shutter story became that Kate found it open but not damaged and that Gerry opened and shut it from the outside to see if that was possible after Kate told him the child was missing.

It just seems that as a lot of things in the case got proven to be one way by actual evidence, then a new version of what happened would be remembered.

General General

Happyman42 wrote: »

... speculating on an internet forum is pointless.

I suggest that others might like themselves better and be a bit more humane as human beings if they gave up the purient interest in stuff like this.

...but but but

Happyman42

El Weirdo wrote: »

I actually said:

What about the 40 odd questions the Portuguese police wanted to ask Kate before she headed back to England?


No, the point being made is that obviously guilty people aren't always convicted.

Before you jump on me, I am not saying that the McCanns are obviously guilty. But it happens.

The McCanns say that they wrote this book because they wanted to keep the disappearance of their daughter in the public mind. Well judging by this thread alone, they have certainly done that.

They have certainly got what they say they want and people are again talking and debating the case. It is inevitable that people are going to start asking questions and not entirely believe their version of events.

the only answer to that is....'how do you know he is guilty?'


wouldn't be a hunch by any chance?

El Weirdo

Happyman42 wrote: »

the only answer to that is....'how do you know he is guilty?'


wouldn't be a hunch by any chance?

That's not an answer. That's another question.

sellerbarry

Those two should have been locked up for neglect. If you are going to have children, the least you can do is keep them safe from harm. Not pop down to the pub for a few hours and leave them on their own. Sick to the gills of hearing pity for these two.:mad:

Little Acorn

Kess73 wrote: »

The thing about Jill Remwick's comments is that she said them on live TV some 12 hours after the child was found to be missing, and she did so with only the McCann's version of the story. So on the GMTV show on Friday 4th May 2007 she stated clearly that the children were only left at 20:00 and then checked at 21:00 and 22:00.

She also said that the McCanns were positive of an abduction as the shutter were damaged from being forced open.

Other friends and family went on tv and gave interviews to the british media that day saying the same thing but also thowing in things about how the McCanns were distraught at having to wait ages for police and that they were furious that the police did not contact airports etc.

Now these family members, one of the Kate's mother, could only have been getting these "facts" from one source.

Just seems very strange that so many people were willing to go on tv and go on the attack with "facts" and then many of these facts got altered to add in new checking times, and then those checking times got altered further to the checkers having not seen the girl when they checked.

Plus the not contacting of airports etc was proven to be false yet the McCanns still mention about a lack of roadblocks and a lack of blocking borders.

Just seems very irresponsible for people in another country to be going to the media with claims while the investigation was only 12 hours or less old.


The broken shutter one is annoying as well. As that started out with them saying the shutter was forced and that it was damaged. Yet when the police first checked the shutter it was unopened as far as I know, and had no damage at all to it and no signs of being forced.

Then the shutter story became that Kate found it open but not damaged and that Gerry opened and shut it from the outside to see if that was possible after Kate told him the child was missing.

It just seems that as a lot of things in the case got proven to be one way by actual evidence, then a new version of what happened would be remembered.

That is the way I feel about a lot of the case aswell.
Some of the changing stories, the changing descriptions from Jane Tanner, the shutter thing bugs the hell out of me too!
As I said earlier, I could probably overlook some of these things, but I find it too hard to overlook the dog alerts. And the way they just laugh off the alerts as stupid, as if they are some silly dogs barking really annoys me.
They could at least try to offer some plausible explanations!

Benzino

Happyman42 wrote: »

ffs, you said 'I am convinced they have something to answer'.
The authorities asked the questions, they found nothing to press charges over.
You are speculating based on a hunch. You are part of the muttering mob with stones behind their backs.

Do you think she was abducted?

Happyman42

El Weirdo wrote: »

That's not an answer. That's another question.

well spotted Sherlock!




and? :rolleyes:

Kess73

Little Acorn wrote: »

That is the way I feel about a lot of the case aswell.
Some of the changing stories, the changing descriptions from Jane Tanner, the shutter thing bugs the hell out of me too!
As I said earlier, I could probably overlook some of these things, but I find it too hard to overlook the dog alerts. And the way they just laugh off the alerts as stupid, as if they are some silly dogs barking really annoys me.
They could at least try to offer some plausible explanations!

Yeah they have done that with a few things, just laughed off things rather than say why they thought it was not possible.

They seem to forget that a hell of a lot of their story has nothing bar their word as evidence and could be laughed off in a similar manner.

Now I am sure that it is possible that they could laugh off things due to knowing their version is totally true, and maybe that would be the approach of some people if innocent of harming the child.

But it could be argued that a guilty person would be just as quick to dismiss anything said against their version as well, and that such a person would not be quick to get into a detailed debate.

It is a very hard case to be sure of in terms of what happened as there is enough there to suggest that a number of scenarios are plausible.

The actual evidence found by both the Portugese and the British police tends to suggest that McCann's story is not as truthful as they make out, but it is not enough evidence to prove foul play on their behalf and is just enough to make the abductor scenario more unlikely than it is likely.

The one thing I have thought about a few times is if there could be a third scenario.

One where the McCanns did not harm the child, but where a randon abductor who left no traces was not involved.

Basically something along the lines of someone they know being involved. Somebody who knew their times to the exact minute, and who would have known exactly what room and bed to go to. Who maybe could have given that information to a third party for payment.

Ok that idea is just from the top of my head and is probably the stuff of a poorly wriiten fiction novel, but it does paint a scenario where both the police and the McCanns are wrong about each other because of a party that is already on the inside and privy to what is being said by both parties.

El Weirdo

Happyman42 wrote: »

well spotted Sherlock!




and? :rolleyes:

Are you just going to avoid the question.

metrovelvet

They had been leaving the kids alone for five nights consecutively and that is enough time for someone to be able to watch a pattern and make a move. And Im sure many of the staff would be low paid enough to accept a bribe or stupid enough to believe someones claims that the parents were evil and the child deserved to be rescued. Whomever did this, knew what they were doing.

Happyman42

Benzino wrote: »

Do you think she was abducted?

No idea.

cosanostra

sellerbarry wrote: »

Those two should have been locked up for neglect. If you are going to have children, the least you can do is keep them safe from harm. Not pop down to the pub for a few hours and leave them on their own. Sick to the gills of hearing pity for these two.:mad:

Surely you mean those six they all left their kids unattended!

Happyman42

El Weirdo wrote: »

Are you just going to avoid the question.

I answered it...I have no idea wheter he is guilty or not. I am not that arrogant that I would make an assessment, not having sat through his trial.

metrovelvet

cosanostra wrote: »

Surely you mean those six they all left their kids unattended!

If they were single parents the social workers would have abducted their kids.

El Weirdo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I answered it...I have no idea wheter he is guilty or not. I am not that arrogant that I would make an assessment, not having sat through his trial.

Fair enough. But you seem to be accusing me of saying that the McCanns are guilty even though I have said nothing of the sort. I have said I don't know.

I have suspicions but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, is there?

ppink

This is what bothers me

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TNh2IqpQ1_I/AAAAAAAAd7Q/2_X1dFb7T00/s1600/maddie_4th_birthday_keir_simmons.jpg

bad2dabone

ppink wrote: »

This is what bothers me

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TNh2IqpQ1_I/AAAAAAAAd7Q/2_X1dFb7T00/s1600/maddie_4th_birthday_keir_simmons.jpg

Weird reaction to having a kid abducted alright. I'd be a husk of a person, I don't imagine i'd be able to laugh.

Tipsy McSwagger

ppink wrote: »

This is what bothers me

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TNh2IqpQ1_I/AAAAAAAAd7Q/2_X1dFb7T00/s1600/maddie_4th_birthday_keir_simmons.jpg

So what? They are laughing so they are guilty, what a load of crap.

barone

if they are innocent they are the guiltiest looking/acting innocent people i can remember...









will we ever know ?

misterdeeds

sxt wrote: »

I see a Gerry and kate mcann have a new book out, and are appearing on the late late show to plug it next week. A good place for them to appear as they are probablly aware that Ryan Tubridy is a soft touch interviewer lacking the guile and skill to ask and pursue tough questions where they are merited . This is a couple who will do anything to court the media and muster public support to thier own gain. A couple who pass the blame on to everyone but themselves for the "abduction"(an abduction in which Columbo could not have solved because there is zero evidence of an abduction), not the fact that they left their children unattended while they wined and dined with friends, and now they have been given a prime time slot on RTE to plug their book and gain the love of the nation


http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/friday-13th-may-mccanns-scheduled-to-appear-on-late-late-show/


The Portugese and British investigators didn't believe the Mcanns Story,Their conclusion was that the abduction scenario was impossible and that Madeline died by cause of accident in the appartment.

I have a couple of other questions Which Ryan could ask them?

Why Did the specially trained cadaver sniffer dogs, flown in from the Uk detect the presence of a dead body in your appartment , and in your rental car? Were those dogs lying?Were they incompetent fools like you made the portugese police out to be?

Why do you imply that the "Madeline Fund" is a charity, It is a private limited company? How much do you spend on your legal expenses ,
, lawsuits against people trying to tarnish your brand name, and on your own personal expenses?

Why didn't you answer the 48 police questions asked you by the police, they seemed like pretty reasonable and straight forward questions ?I can;t spot any trick questions

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/48-Questions-Kate-McCann-Faced-from-Portugese-Police/Article/200808115070874




Some more questions

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-madeleine-foundations-50-facts-leaflet/





This is most dangerous and predictable question(s) that the DLB will ask them, which will be pre rehearsed and executed with aplomb by team mcann



"What do you say to those people that say you might have something to do..../know what happened to Madeline...."

Cue emotion from Kate Mcann , and RTE camera zooming in our Gerrys hand squeezing hers , and so on

And Tubridy ending the interview with deep sorrow etched on his face, wishing them well and every success in the future, and how he can't imagine what they are going through etc





http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=sick/sick0006.gif




If they were not a well off couple and had not of whipped this into a media frenzy, this couple would have been rightfully behind bars to this day.


Do you think they should be given the platform to rally the compassion of the public, by being given an easy ride by Tubridy and prime time slot by RTE ,to plug their book and themselves and put forward a view which is contrary to Every police force involved in the case, man, woman and canine and I think that majority of people as well.

The one thing that maddens me is why did they leave the children in the apt ALL ALONE and they were in the pub DINING THEMSELVES I woudnt call that parenting would u ?,and if you ask me I think the mother has a very suspicious look on her face .

lugha

misterdeeds wrote: »

and if you ask me I think the mother has a very suspicious look on her face .

Truly frightening to see so many people coming out with this kind of nonsense about how a grieving parent should appear and behave.
It is one thing to assess the actual (real!) evidence and argue that there is grounds for suspecting them, but this mush....

Karona

Our parents never once left us alone on holidays, if they wanted to go out for a meal we went with them, if they wanted a drink we went with them.

My mam also had one of those childs lead things on each of us until we reached about 10 years of age. They would not allow us to wander out of her sight in any circumstance.

I just dont see how they could leave 3 small children in an apartment by themselves while they went for dinner. If they wanted dinner they should have brought the children with them no matter how inconvienient it was. Their first responsibility should have been for their children not for peace and quiet whilst they ate. Disgraceful in my opinion.

Wolfe Tone

I bet if they where two poor folk from a council house in a deprived area they would have been treated differently by all concerned...

AudreyHepburn

bad2dabone wrote: »

Weird reaction to having a kid abducted alright. I'd be a husk of a person, I don't imagine i'd be able to laugh.

Neither you nor anyone else can know for sure how you would react to losing a child. You might be able to smile at the memories or you might fall apart. You don't know.

As I have said before just because they are not falling to their knees, wailing and tearing at their hair does not mean they do not miss Madeleine all the time and bitterly regret their actions that night.

I can't believe the amount of people on here who arrogantly assume to understand a situation I'd wager none of us or few of us have ever been in before.

AudreyHepburn

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I bet if they where two poor folk from a council house in a deprived area they would have been treated differently by all concerned...

Don't presume to know what anyone but yourself would or not do please, it adds nothing to the discussion.

Coriolanus

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I bet if they where two poor folk from a council house in a deprived area they would have been treated differently by all concerned...

Without a doubt. Then again, look at that pair from a council estate in England. They actually did kidnap their own kid to try and make some money off of it.

mconigol

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Actually as a qualified First Aider I can tell that I think you'll find it's only 911 in the USA. The international emergency number is 112.

lol

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I bet if they where two poor folk from a council house in a deprived area they would have been treated differently by all concerned...

Probably, then again thats probably the case with most aspects of life.

Wolfe Tone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't presume to know what anyone but yourself would or not do please, it adds nothing to the discussion.

You wont mind if I completely ignore you and proceed on regardless?

Good lad.

AudreyHepburn

mconigol wrote: »

lol

Great contribution there.

Care to elaborate?

And before you accuse me of being incorrect read these;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999_(emergency_telephone_number)

It mentions 112 as the pan-European (not international maybe but the point still stands) emergency number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1

American/Candian number only.

AudreyHepburn

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You wont mind if I completely ignore you and proceed on regardless?

Good lad.

I'm a lady actually.

By all means stay on that high horse, that's your perogitave.

I just think it's arrogant to presume you know some-one else's mind.

Brussels Sprout

How in the hell is this thread still going?

there must be an awful lot of this going on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

AudreyHepburn

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

How in the hell is this thread still going?

there must be an awful lot of this going on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Yep, in just about every other post.

Wolfe Tone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm a lady actually.

By all means stay on that high horse, that's your perogitave.

I just think it's arrogant to presume you know some-one else's mind.

So you think the fact that they are both well off well spoken doctors whose friends know people in the media played absolutely no part to play whatsoever?

AudreyHepburn

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So you think the fact that they are both well off well spoken doctors whose friends know people in the media played absolutely no part to play whatsoever?

No none at all except that it allows them the means to continue to look for Madeleine.

I don't think it has any baring on their guilt or innocence.

fulhamfanincork

My sympathies lie with Madeleine and her other siblings.

**** the parents, *****.

ppink

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

So what? They are laughing so they are guilty, what a load of crap.

Where did I say they were guilty

Benzino

Their refusal to answer the 48 questions the police had bothers me a bit. If your innocent, why wouldn't you answer the questions?

The only explanation I can think of is that they felt the questions would make them look guilty when they are not. If that is the case, so frigging what!?! Do everything in your power to get your child back safe, and then worry about proving your innocence.

Kate said last night that she would do anything to switch with Madeleine, but she wouldn't answer 48 questions which could have greatly helped the investigation. That's suspicious behaviour in my book.

Paully D

Stella89 wrote: »

No one comes forth with this hyposition... No one says that they killed their own child ... no one...


It is believed that Madeline died whilst left unattended..

They still wouldn't have the balls to go four years lying about it. They'd have cracked by now.

danmoz

The people who keep saying "It's only circumstantial evidence", I assume you all know what 'circumstantial evidence' is?

Is a fingerprint 'circumstantial' or 'direct' evidence?

Is DNA 'circumstantial' or 'direct' evidence?