Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Kevin Duffy

Paully D wrote: »

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

I'm not comparing them or offering a conclusion on the McCanns, but Natascha Kampusch and JC Lee Dugard for held a lot longer than 4 years, Fritzl kept it up for 24 years. People can lie about all sorts of things for a long, long time. Any statement predicting human behaviour, particularily in extreme situations, is inherently fallible.

Paully D

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

I'm not comparing them or offering a conclusion on the McCanns, but Natascha Kampusch and JC Lee Dugard for held a lot longer than 4 years, Fritzl kept it up for 24 years. People can lie about all sorts of things for a long, long time. Any statement predicting human behaviour, particularily in extreme situations, is inherently fallible.

They weren't exposing themselves to the media constantly though, trying to get attention on them all the time to keep the incident out there.

I just don't think the McCann's would have the balls to keep up their innocent act for so long under such intense scrutiny from the media and the public if they were guilty of hiding something.

You'd need ice in your veins to do it IMO.

Kevin Duffy

Paully D wrote: »

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

Paully D wrote: »

They weren't exposing themselves to the media constantly though, trying to get attention on them all the time to keep the incident out there.

I just don't think the McCann's would have the balls to keep up their innocent act for so long under such intense scrutiny from the media and the public if they were guilty of hiding something.

You'd need ice in your veins to do it IMO.

Indeed, you're right, those examples didn't expose themselves, but the many evangelical preachers who condemned the sort of acts they were later found to be committing illustrate my point. Many famous people conceal their sexuality all through their careers. People are capable of huge deceit.

Again, I'm not offering conclusion on the McCanns, but keeping yourself in the spotlight is a good way to make sure people keep saying "they couldn't be guilty, they're courting publicity". There are Irish and Japanse proverbs both paraphrased as the best place to hide something, is under the light.

danmoz

Paully D wrote: »

They weren't exposing themselves to the media constantly though, trying to get attention on them all the time to keep the incident out there.

I just don't think the McCann's would have the balls to keep up their innocent act for so long under such intense scrutiny from the media and the public if they were guilty of hiding something.

You'd need ice in your veins to do it IMO.

Mitchell Quy did it for 18 months before police charged him for murdering his wife. Shannon Matthews mother did a good job of lying to the media too.

ician

I just have a question that maybe somebody can shed light on since watching the interview.

In the interview Kate says she entered the room and made the point that the window was open causing the curtains to move and the door to slam.

In Gonçalo Amaral's documentary if I remember correctly he said that originally Kate said the window was open but when they only found her finger prints on the window her story changed and she stated that she must have opened it when she entered the room and found Madeline missing.

Unless I am mistaken with what I heard, there is a huge difference in these accounts.

One more thing that annoyed me, Gerry said in the interview that he went outside and noticed that the shutters could be opened from the outside. In Gonçalo Amaral's documentary they state that there was no signs of entry and he mentions that it was a soft metal/plastic and a screw driver or something that would force it open would leave marks. If the window could be opened with such ease then why would they even mention screw drivers.

I am most definitely not sitting on the side of the McCanns, there are too many things point me in another direction. But the discrepancies in Gonçalo Amaral's account (or what I remember from it) and there story is glaring.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Karona wrote: »

My mam also had one of those childs lead things on each of us until we reached about 10 years of age.

Oh. Like a dog.

Karona

Zoie Damaged Backpacker wrote: »

Oh. Like a dog.

just like a dog

danmoz

ician wrote: »

I just have a question that maybe somebody can shed light on since watching the interview.

In the interview Kate says she entered the room and made the point that the window was open causing the curtains to move and the door to slam.

In Gonçalo Amaral's documentary if I remember correctly he said that originally Kate said the window was open but when they only found her finger prints on the window her story changed and she stated that she must have opened it when she entered the room and found Madeline missing.

Unless I am mistaken with what I heard, there is a huge difference in these accounts.

One more thing that annoyed me, Gerry said in the interview that he went outside and noticed that the shutters could be opened from the outside. In Gonçalo Amaral's documentary they state that there was no signs of entry and he mentions that it was a soft metal/plastic and a screw driver or something that would force it open would leave marks. If the window could be opened with such ease then why would they even mention screw drivers.

I am most definitely not sitting on the side of the McCanns, there are too many things point me in another direction. But the discrepancies in Gonçalo Amaral's account (or what I remember from it) and there story is glaring.

No, she originally said the shutters had been forced open and broken.

Then she said the other stuff.

Tipsy McSwagger

ppink wrote: »

Where did I say they were guilty

So what bothers you then?

K-9

danmoz wrote: »

No, she originally said the shutters had been forced open and broken.

Then she said the other stuff.

There was something about the window being open, the police inspector pointed out that this wasn't noticed in the earlier inspections.

Thing is, there was no evidence of any other finger prints other than Kates' on the window or evidence of glove fibres either.

metrovelvet

Why would they need to go through the window if the door was open?

danmoz

K-9 wrote: »

There was something about the window being open, the police inspector pointed out that this wasn't noticed in the earlier inspections.

Thing is, there was no evidence of any other finger prints other than Kates' on the window or evidence of glove fibres either.

I think she said the shutters had been forced and the window was open, yet only her prints were in the window. Curiously, do we know how many prints? If it's an entire hand then that could be completely innocent, but if it was just one that might suggest she'd tried to clean them up and missed one.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why would they need to go through the window if the door was open?

Exactly and why the inspector thought that particular part was a cover up. I agree with that myself, they had questions to answer over their negligence.

danmoz wrote: »

I think she said the shutters had been forced and the window was open, yet only her prints were in the window. Curiously, do we know how many prints? If it's an entire hand then that could be completely innocent, but if it was just one that might suggest she'd tried to clean them up and missed one.

3 or 4 I think. He didn't say if they were big.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly and why the inspector thought that particular part was a cover up. I agree with that myself, they had questions to answer over their negligence.



3 or 4 I think. He didn't say if they were big.

Oh because she didnt want to admit she left the door open?

I dont think these parents killed or kidnapped her at all. If they are hiding anything, including from themselves, its their own culpability in this tragedy.

ician

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh because she didnt want to admit she left the door open?

I dont think these parents killed or kidnapped her at all. If they are hiding anything, including from themselves, its their own culpability in this tragedy.

But I thought I had read that the door being open part of the story only came about after the finger prints on the window were proven to be Kate's and only Kate's.

If they are willing to cover something small up, then you know

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh because she didnt want to admit she left the door open?

I dont think these parents killed or kidnapped her at all. If they are hiding anything, including from themselves, its their own culpability in this tragedy.

Yep, well more that Gerry was insistent he used the front door which the inspector points out makes no sense if the patio door was open. The friend he met about 9.15 or so noted he used the back entrance to come out. Seems odd he'd use the more inconvenient and further away from the kids, front door, and leave by the unlocked and handier back door.

Also there was Madeline's book that was used to note down what seems 2 versions of the timelines of the checks on the kids.

Also he pointed out at one stage Kate said the checks were hourly, then from the Tapas 9 different reports ranging from every half hour to 15 minutes to almost every 5/10 minutes at one stage!

metrovelvet

The thing is they were drinking. I read in a timeline that said they shared a bottle of wine before going out to dinner, and then presumable there was more alcohol at the dinner.

So I could see how he might use a less obvious entrance if he had a couple of drinks. You do tend to do things that dont make any sense.

Also, memory is not record, its interpretation, so given this with the alcohol I would be suspicious of any time keeping they thought they had going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

Given that the door and the patio were open whomever took her, could have used either exit.

Naikon

$$$

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

The thing is they were drinking. I read in a timeline that said they shared a bottle of wine before going out to dinner, and then presumable there was more alcohol at the dinner.

So I could see how he might use a less obvious entrance if he had a couple of drinks. You do tend to do things that dont make any sense.

Also, memory is not record, its interpretation, so given this with the alcohol I would be suspicious of any time keeping they thought they had going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

Given that the door and the patio were open whomever took her, could have used either exit.

The one about Gerry at 9.05 checking and seeing all 3 is the odd one. Other records show he didn't see her!

ppink

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

So what bothers you then?

it bothers me that it does not fit in with grief stricken parents who 2 weeks earlier had their child taken by "a man". Parents who according to Kate McCann were persecuted with guilt and who also had very graphic images going through her head as to what was possibly being done to her 3 year old daughter's genitals (as she wayyyy over graphically described in her new book)

Although I realise a photo is a snapshot in time there seem to be a lot of them shortly after the event where in particular Gerry is laughing a bit too much.........nerves maybe? who knows

Little Acorn

This is a good read which imo shows how unlikely Jane Tanner saw an abductor carrying Madeline.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFIQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.madeleinefoundation.org.uk%2FHowdidtheallegedabductor.html&ei=a-vOTaDSO4u1hAeq6djnDA&usg=AFQjCNEIgnTDp4EylUUH36b75TC-rAYoOA

Just wanted to add. This article was forced to be taken down by the McCann team in 2010, but has since been put back up by the author due to some comments Clarence Mitchell made this year in January.

metrovelvet

I think she was abducted. I think the abductor had been casing them for a week, probably a local or staff, or delivery guy or someone who had been renting an apartment, and quite simply used the door that was left open. Probably drugged the child so she wouldnt wake up and walked right out with her.

The more you read though...the weirder and weirder it gets.

Mistyeyes321

I Have read with interest most of this Thread & I just cannot believe how many of you think it's perfectly accetable to leave three Babies alone!!

"With remarks like all Parent's make Mistakes"

Maybe it's just me so here goes, Never ever isit Acceptable to leave any child alone while the Parent's float off for Dinner & whatever else they we're doing!!

This wasn't like has been said on many boards, "It was just like having dinner in the Garden" How can anyone stick up for this Odious pair? Who Court the Media at every oppotunity they get!!

The only one who anyone should feel sorry for is this missing Child!! Who is Probably dead thank's to her Parent's Neglect....I don't know what happened to this Baby just like no one else seem's to do...I do know I don't belieive these so called Parent's!! & Never will & i'm not sorry to say I have no Sympathy what so ever for them!!

Of course we as Parent's make Mistakes...Putting your babies to bed & trotting off out & leaving them alone isn't a Mistake it's Neglect!! I can only assume maybe some poster's don't have children or are not Old enough to have children!! It's a Mother & Father's Instinct to Protect their Children...Not Abandom them at every chance they get:mad:

Also timelines, We only have the McCanns & their wonderful friends word on what time anything was supposed to have taken place...How do any of us know for sure it's the truth? We don't!

metrovelvet

G. MCCANN said it was like having dinner in the garden.

Lol.

OK. If im in the garden and my four year old is in the house, or vice a versa, the garden gate is locked and the front door is locked. And its not a goddamed hotel with strangers walking around drunk and god knows what.

And the garden is actually six inches, not 100 meters behind the house.

I cant believe they still defend that.

Mistyeyes321

metrovelvet wrote: »

G. MCCANN said it was like having dinner in the garden.

Lol.

OK. If im in the garden and my four year old is in the house, or vice a versa, the garden gate is locked and the front door is locked. And its not a goddamed hotel with strangers walking around drunk and god knows what.

And the garden is actually six inches, not 100 meters behind the house.

I cant believe they still defend that.

Have you seen the Video on youtube of this 100 yards to the Tapas Bar? More like a Route March & they couldn't see the apartment from where they we're supposedly sitting either!!

metrovelvet

Ok, I havent really investigated the details until that link Little Acorn posted.

And I'm starting to wonder did anyone check on her at all? I dont trust the memory of people who had been drinking, been traumatised and so riddled with guilt they cant even look at themselves.

Scram

suitseir wrote: »

Something has just dawned on me................................................maybe they are telling the truth!

I know it's a long shot BUT.................

Of course two Doctors go for a meal out, leave there kinds out of view (its a 40 second walk) who in their right mind would do that?

Are they Alchos? Jesus for 2 doctors to that its beyond belief.

Not saying they did any crime but for 2 Doctors, well educated people to do that..is just shocking and;
"Go read the book"
"we never argue"

TheBunk1

Just watchin Piers Morgan interview the McCanns on CNN. Some difference to Tubridy's "style". Much more direct and is asking the hard questions. A lot of their answers are word for the same as last night on the LLS, but I guess that comes with endless interviews with the same questions for the last 4 years.

Such a strange and divisive story. I really don't don't know what to make of it all. Honestly I probably don't believe they had anything to do with it it but they come across so cold sometimes. Gerry's response to Tubridy last night, when asked what they had to say to people who believed they were involved and he just said "read the book"!!! terrible response.

Gerry McCann reminds me of Joe O Reilly though... :-O

AskMyChocolate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I Have read with interest most of this Thread & I just cannot believe how many of you think it's perfectly accetable to leave three Babies alone!!

"With remarks like all Parent's make Mistakes"

Maybe it's just me so here goes, Never ever isit Acceptable to leave any child alone while the Parent's float off for Dinner & whatever else they we're doing!!

This wasn't like has been said on many boards, "It was just like having dinner in the Garden" How can anyone stick up for this Odious pair? Who Court the Media at every oppotunity they get!!

The only one who anyone should feel sorry for is this missing Child!! Who is Probably dead thank's to her Parent's Neglect....I don't know what happened to this Baby just like no one else seem's to do...I do know I don't belieive these so called Parent's!! & Never will & i'm not sorry to say I have no Sympathy what so ever for them!!

Of course we as Parent's make Mistakes...Putting your babies to bed & trotting off out & leaving them alone isn't a Mistake it's Neglect!! I can only assume maybe some poster's don't have children or are not Old enough to have children!! It's a Mother & Father's Instinct to Protect their Children...Not Abandom them at every chance they get:mad:

Also timelines, We only have the McCanns & their wonderful friends word on what time anything was supposed to have taken place...How do any of us know for sure it's the truth? We don't!

Couldn't agree more Misty. But I think if you read the thread you'll find that it is PARENTS who are defending the McCanns' behaviour and giving single people abuse for calling them neglectful.

metrovelvet wrote: »

G. MCCANN said it was like having dinner in the garden.

Lol.

OK. If im in the garden and my four year old is in the house, or vice a versa, the garden gate is locked and the front door is locked. And its not a goddamed hotel with strangers walking around drunk and god knows what.

And the garden is actually six inches, not 100 meters behind the house.

I cant believe they still defend that.

The important point here too, is that if you are having dinner in the garden, and there are nine of you, even if you are out of earshot, there is a constant stream of people, going into the house to use the toilet, so the kids are checked on every two minutes. Of course accidents, sometimes, can only take a second and are unpreventable, but for the McCanns' to draw this comparison is revoltingly disingenuous. Why the fcuk couldn't they just take turns, cooking in each others apartments and top'n'tail the kids in the beds and take them home at the end of the night?

Surely this is how normal parents do things on a holiday away.

Also I'm astounded at the ignorance of some of the parents on this thread. Do they know nothing about kids? I'm a single man, but even I can see the inherent dangers of leaving a little girl alone with two babies. Forget about kidnappers. Little girls copy their mothers. It would be quite likely for Madeleine to decide to play "Mammy" and try to give one of the babies a bath (resulting in horrendous burns), or try to boil a saucepan of water to heat a bottle (resulting in horrendous burns), or, if one of the babies woke up and was crying, try to get the Calpol down from the top cupboard (resulting in her splitting her head open), or manage to get the Calpol and administer a lethal dose.

And they left a three-year old to babysit, two one-year olds, for two and a half hours, every night for a week and people (parents:eek:) are making excuses for them. I honestly despair.

Karona

I noticed how everytime Ryan Tubridy asked Kate Mc Cann a question, Gerry answered.

ladypip

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Forget about kidnappers. Little girls copy their mothers. It would be quite likely for Madeleine to decide to play "Mammy" and try to give one of the babies a bath (resulting in horrendous burns), or try to boil a saucepan of water to heat a bottle (resulting in horrendous burns), or, if one of the babies woke up and was crying, try to get the Calpol down from the top cupboard (resulting in her splitting her head open), or manage to get the Calpol and administer a lethal dose.

This was one of the first things i thought when the story broke. She could have done anything left alone. Tried to plug in the tv and pulled the tv on top of herself, decided she'd cook dinner and fall on the knife the list of things that could have happened to her is endless. A three year old left alone its still unbelievable 4 years on!!!

metrovelvet

Im a little [well alot] confused.

THere was a front door which was left open.

There were patio doors which were also open.

And there was a window with a shutter in the bedroom, which kate mcann says was left closed, including the shutter, but was found open.

Is that right?

ppink

I think that is right.
It is very confusing and there is too much "wrong" about the whole case. Did I get it right that Kate said on the LLS that Madeline could not have gotton out of the appartment as there were child locks?? is that is how she knew she was taken as opposed to wandered out and fallen into the pool?

I will never understand how they could not have have had (at the very least)

a) baby monitors with them at the table

or

b) keep all the kids together and take turns in going back for 20 mins- with the amount of them that were there they would only have max 2 turns.

All "educated" people who left their kids

GT_TDI_150

some one mentioned the detectives book a while back, can it be purchased/borrowed anywhere?:o

metrovelvet

^ the detective did his own documentary which you can look at on youtube. Im not convinced by him either.

iamwhoiam

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Couldn't agree more Misty. But I think if you read the thread you'll find that it is PARENTS who are defending the McCanns' behaviour and giving single people abuse for calling them neglectful.




.

Absolutely not , I am a parent and under no circumstances would I condone what that group of people did .
I stayed in an apartment that looked straight down on the number 5a and the Mark Warner complex . What the Mc Canns failed to mention is that you cant walk in a straight line from the Tapas bar to 5a, you have to go out by the reception entrance on to the road and up the steps into the apartment .You cannot see the doors from the bar unless you eat standing on a chair .
The apartment 5a is particulary vulnerable as its the corner one and the steps lead on to the road outside .Its the main road leading from many apartments down to the sea front and restaurants , so people are passing all the time .The front entrace ( facing away from the complex is hidden from view by trees and bushes .
I would not have left cash or credit cards openly exposed in that apartment , never mind three precious little children
I dont know the full story , I know the evidence is flawed , stories changed , mobile phones wiped clear before handing over and many many more little niggles .
What I do know is that that group and most of all the Mc Canns put their own enjoyment and entertainment before the safety of thier children .
For that alone in my eyes they were hugely neglectful and sellfish .
In fact watching that apartment and how it could be open to break in and is vulnerable I am very surprised that not all three kids were taken .

I think the Mc Canns are on a mission to blame anyone they can so they dont have to look inward and see they it was they who facilitated and they who were the childrens keepers and they who should have kept them safe .

MagicMarker

TheBunk1 wrote: »

Just watchin Piers Morgan interview the McCanns on CNN. Some difference to Tubridy's "style". Much more direct and is asking the hard questions. A lot of their answers are word for the same as last night on the LLS, but I guess that comes with endless interviews with the same questions for the last 4 years.

Such a strange and divisive story. I really don't don't know what to make of it all. Honestly I probably don't believe they had anything to do with it it but they come across so cold sometimes. Gerry's response to Tubridy last night, when asked what they had to say to people who believed they were involved and he just said "read the book"!!! terrible response.

Gerry McCann reminds me of Joe O Reilly though... :-O

Is this online?

iamwhoiam

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im a little [well alot] confused.

THere was a front door which was left open.

There were patio doors which were also open.

And there was a window with a shutter in the bedroom, which kate mcann says was left closed, including the shutter, but was found open.

Is that right?

Its an odd layout , the front of the apartment with a front door entrance faces away from the complex on to a car park , surrounded by bushes .I believe that door was locked.
The back door , facing into the complex and ovr looking the pool had patio doors leading onto concrete steps which led straight on to a road .Those doors were unlocked . The road leads into the main area , sea front , shops , prom and restaurants and straight passed the main little supermarket so quite busy .Its not the M50 but a busy road with cars , bikes , vans etc passing ,

ppink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRw5wMx0QcM

also the CNN ones on the panel to the right of this video

metrovelvet

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Its an odd layout , the front of the apartment with a front door entrance faces away from the complex on to a car park , surrounded by bushes .I believe that door was locked.
The back door , facing into the complex and ovr looking the pool had patio doors leading onto concrete steps which led straight on to a road .Those doors were unlocked . The road leads into the main area , sea front , shops , prom and restaurants and straight passed the main little supermarket so quite busy .Its not the M50 but a busy road with cars , bikes , vans etc passing ,

And what about the windows. shutters? There has been a lot of debate about them? Easy to open frm outside? Noisy?

iamwhoiam

metrovelvet wrote: »

And what about the windows. shutters? There has been a lot of debate about them? Easy to open frm outside? Noisy?

If they are like the ones I came across they are not at all easy to open from outside .In fact I think police reports stated they couldnt be and in fact the Mc Canns changed their story about the shutter later on . The noise wouldnt really be an issue as I imagine shutters are up and down alot in that area . And the window and door was well hidden by bushes .
No one passing has ever been known to have noted the window open that night .

---

http://clarencemitchell.webs.com/
2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in

On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. They repeated that claim many times - a claim the media reported extensively. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forcing the McCanns to dramatically change their story - one of many changes of story - to say: ‘the abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily’ leaving no forensic trace.

---

And oddly enough , knowing this fact and knowing the statement had to be retracted Gerry went ahead on the Late Late and said the shutters could be opened from outside ,when all investigations said they couldnt .
And then they wonder why people dont believe other statements they make .

Silver Moon

metrovelvet wrote: »

And what about the windows. shutters? There has been a lot of debate about them? Easy to open frm outside? Noisy?

these type of shutters are common place all over Portgual and Spain - the whole point of them is that they can't be opened form the outside.

iamwhoiam

ppink wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRw5wMx0QcM

also the CNN ones on the panel to the right of this video

Thank you for that . Like in " being the garden " my ass , it was not like it at all . Between the Tapas bar and the apartment is a large swimming pool , walk way , trees , bushes and a path .

Also , Gerry says " why would you think of someone coming into a holiday apartment and stealing your children ? "

The same way you presume someone would come in and steal your cash , so you secure it . I bet they secured their credit cards and jewellery

AskMyChocolate

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

some one mentioned the detectives book a while back, can it be purchased/borrowed anywhere?:o

It's free on-line. He's not in it for the money. Also, he has spent the last four years of his retirement trying to solve the case/find the girl.

Cue the drumbangers.

metrovelvet

iamwhoiam wrote: »

If they are like the ones I came across they are not at all easy to open from outside .In fact I think police reports stated they couldnt be and in fact the Mc Canns changed their story about the shutter later on . The noise wouldnt really be an issue as I imagine shutters are up and down alot in that area . And the window and door was well hidden by bushes .
No one passing has ever been known to have noted the window open that night .

---

http://clarencemitchell.webs.com/
2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in

On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. They repeated that claim many times - a claim the media reported extensively. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forcing the McCanns to dramatically change their story - one of many changes of story - to say: ‘the abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily’ leaving no forensic trace.

x

---

And oddly enough , knowing this fact and knowing the statement had to be retracted Gerry went ahead on the Late Late and said the shutters could be opened from outside ,when all investigations said they couldnt .
And then they wonder why people dont believe other statements they make .

The forensics were a mess by the time the cops got there though right?

Why did it take reception an hour to call them?

The location of 5A would answer why M as opposed to the other kids left alone in other apartments.

Twin toddlers? Far too risky and cumbersome and hard to take care of.

Despite the windows the patio doors were open offerring easy access.

metrovelvet

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Thank you for that . Like in " being the garden " my ass , it was not like it at all . Between the Tapas bar and the apartment is a large swimming pool , walk way , trees , bushes and a path .

Also , Gerry says " why would you think of someone coming into a holiday apartment and stealing your children ? "

The same way you presume someone would come in and steal your cash , so you secure it . I bet they secured their credit cards and jewellery

Eh no you dont assume that your child will be abducted, but you also dont assume they wont fall out of the bed, get up in the middle of night and do something stupid...eh like go for walk through the OPEN patio door by some guy offerring them an icecream and saying their mom is in the hospital bull****...or have a nightmare...a fire...anything...

I really cant believe that guy. Why doesnt he just come out and say they made a huge error of judgement, they took huge risks, and stop comparing it to being downstairs in your house while the kids are upstairs asleep. WTF is wrong with him?

Silver Moon

If you believe the McCann version of events then - in the space of around 5 minutes - the abductor got into the apartment through either the patio doors or the front door and then sedated all three children, then picked up Madeliene and climbed out the window with her without leaving and fingerprints or DNA anywhere in the apartment. And they did all that in the dark!

Very skilled. Makes you wonder why they have never struck again.

Silver Moon

metrovelvet wrote: »

Eh no you dont assume that your child will be abducted, but you also dont assume they wont fall out of the bed, get up in the middle of night and do something stupid...eh like go for walk through the OPEN patio door by some guy offerring them an icecream and saying their mom is in the hospital bull****...or have a nightmare...a fire...anything...

I really cant believe that guy. Why doesnt he just come out and say they made a huge error of judgement, they took huge risks, and stop comparing it to being downstairs in your house while the kids are upstairs asleep. WTF is wrong with him?

He's an arrogant tosser, that's what's wrong with him. His primary concern has always been about protecting himself and covering his own back.

Despite what some people claim, the McCanns have NEVER said that what they did was WRONG. The have expresse REGRET at leaving their children night after night in the dar, in an unlocked apartment, out of ear-shot and out of eye sight BUT they still claim it was acceptable behaviour. Had Madeleine not been 'abducted' they would probably still be doing it.

If I was to walk out of my house now and got run over by a bus I could turn round and say "I wish I hadn't tried to cross the road at the moment" or "I really regret going at out that time". But that is NOT the same as saying that what I did was WRONG. I would still be entitled to say that my behaviour in leaving my house and crossing the road was logical and acceptable and that I could not have forseen being run over by a bus - especially considering no buses come down my round anyway!

Gerry McCann must think we're all idiots. He ought to look at himself in the mirror - although he probably loves himeself so I doubt if he'd see what every one else sees.

metrovelvet

Silver Moon wrote: »

If you believe the McCann version of events then - in the space of around 5 minutes - the abductor got into the apartment through either the patio doors or the front door and then sedated all three children, then picked up Madeliene and climbed out the window with her without leaving and fingerprints or DNA anywhere in the apartment. And they did all that in the dark!

Very skilled. Makes you wonder why they have never struck again.

I don't believe any of them checked on the kids at all. I think thats a blatant lie, especially given GMs vision of good parenting.

So that gives whomever did it an hour an a half to do it.

The alternative possibility - if she wasnt abducted... where is she?

TheBucks

I find it hard to believe all their story, but the alternative is they did it, I would prefer to believe the story.