Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

thebullkf

mconigol wrote: »

It is all speculation yes. If there was any concrete evidence they would have been charged by now.

What would you call it?

case is closed/dormant or was till cameron commented SY are looking into it.

I'd call it educated opinion and circumstantial evidence.

Just cos they're not charged doesn't mean they're not guilty.

but of course, you know this.

Happyman42

CK2010 wrote: »

they were drinking for alot more than a few seconds.

if they had taken their eyes off her for a few minutes i dont think anybody would hold it against them tbh. its that they deliberately left the kids alone while they drank. its not the same thing.

nobody said they spend every waking minute of their life with their child but leaving three kids under three alone???

There are people here flat out saying they would never leave their children alone.
Children have been snatched in all sorts of situations. That is the tragedy here.
These people have been turned into cold murderers (by idiots who should know better) because they were irresponsible on holidays.....do you have any idea how chock a block our courts would be if all similar parents where castigated the way this couple have been?

bad2dabone

Happyman42 wrote: »

.....do you have any idea how chock a block our courts would be if all similar parents where castigated the way this couple have been?

probably empty seeing as how the McCanns haven't been charged with neglect.

Wolflikeme

thebullkf wrote: »

case is closed/dormant or was till cameron commented SY are looking into it.

But aren't they only reviewing the case and not actually reopening it? All the McCann's have to do is write a letter to the Portuguese police to have it reopened.

Why don't they want the case reopened? Why wouldn't they more to the point?

I'm guessing it's because they'd instantly be made suspects.....

thebullkf

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are people here flat out saying they would never leave their children alone.
Children have been snatched in all sorts of situations. That is the tragedy here.
These people have been turned into cold murderers (by idiots who should know better) because they were irresponsible on holidays.....do you have any idea how chock a block our courts would be if all similar parents where castigated the way this couple have been?

have you ever done it?

if they're idiots,how should they know better

have you read this whole thread

do you honestly believe the mcCanns have nothing to do with their daughters disappearance

dark crystal

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Did I question their intelligence? I just said I find it hard to comprehend that someone can have absolutely no doubt' they'd nothing to do with what happened their child had they in fact read the McCann files etc.

Saying someone is displaying ignorance or is being blinkered is not exactly questioning one's intelligence.

Ignorant:

1. (a.) Unknown; undiscovered.
2. (a.) Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.
3. (n.) A person untaught or uninformed; one unlettered or unskilled; an ignoramous.
4. (a.) Resulting from ignorance; foolish; silly.
5. (a.) Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware; -- used with of.

Seems like calling someone ignorant is indeed questioning someone's intelligence.

It is an emotive case and one which divides people for sure, but I really don't see the need to start insulting others who have formed a different viewpoint to your own. There is always the chance they may just be right you know.....

thebullkf

Wolflikeme wrote: »

But aren't they only reviewing the case and not actually reopening it?

Why don't they want the case reopened? Why wouldn't they more to the point?

I'm guessing it's because they'd instantly be made suspects.....

not sure tbh:o

I think its initially a review, pending that it could be reopend if they had new information.

thebullkf

dark crystal wrote: »

Ignorant:

1. (a.) Unknown; undiscovered.
2. (a.) Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.
3. (n.) A person untaught or uninformed; one unlettered or unskilled; an ignoramous.
4. (a.) Resulting from ignorance; foolish; silly.
5. (a.) Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware; -- used with of.

Seems like calling someone ignorant is indeed questioning someone's intelligence.

It is an emotive case and one which divides people for sure, but I really don't see the need to start insulting others who have formed a different viewpoint to your own. There is always the chance they may just be right you know.....

this one applies to more recent posters on this thread.

Happyman42

bad2dabone wrote: »

Was your child 3 years old?

Big difference between letting a school age child walk part-way to school and leaving a 3 year old alone in a strange bed in a strange place.

I agree totally that you can't watch your kids all the time, and I think what you're saying about letting your children walk to school is correct and right for their development and sense of independence, but a child at 3 is still a baby and shouldn't be left alone in a strange place while you and your mates are off having drinks. End of story.

What difference does his age make? (He is 4 and a few months, well able for it.) He has been on sleep overs etc etc where I have no idea how he is being looked after what I have to do is 'trust' or I would go mad...the sort of mad I saw in that couples eyes.
Child abduction is very very rare and this family where in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wolflikeme

dark crystal wrote: »

Ignorant:

1. (a.) Unknown; undiscovered.
2. (a.) Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.
3. (n.) A person untaught or uninformed; one unlettered or unskilled; an ignoramous.
4. (a.) Resulting from ignorance; foolish; silly.
5. (a.) Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware; -- used with of.

Seems like calling someone ignorant is indeed questioning someone's intelligence.

Being generally ignorant is different than displaying ignorance towards something. The Madeline McCann case for example.

Nice try though.

maebee

rok wrote: »

Dunno if this ads anything to this thread/discussion but I was on holiday with my Mrs and another couple in the next town, Lagos, around the same time, think we arrived the day before Madeline went missing.
Anyway we all thought the initial search and police effort was weak, from what we saw.
There was a Sky box in our apartment so we saw the story on Sky news. It seemed like Police efforts were only stepped up after it became an international news story.
We had a rented car and went to different beaches everyday but it was about 2 days after the story broke that we 1st saw a roadblock and saw Police stopping and searching cars. At that stage it seemed more like a PR job to protect Algarves tourist industry than anything.
We drove to the small town Prair da Luz a couple of days later, out of curiosity. Think we were able to drive quiet close to their resort. It looked like a lovely quiet clean safe spot, bit too small and quiet for me but prob perfect for a young family holiday. We went for brekkie and overheard some older English folk in bits crying, think they may have been relatives that flew over.
My feeling is that McCanns are not involved in Madeline's disappearance, just hope that whoever took her is not a completely perverted sicko.

Felt guilty enjoyin a holiday while they were goin through hell, we looked out for notices asking for help to search but didn't seem much was going on.

Please read the official Files:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

CK2010

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are people here flat out saying they would never leave their children alone.
Children have been snatched in all sorts of situations. That is the tragedy here.
These people have been turned into cold murderers (by idiots who should know better) because they were irresponsible on holidays.....do you have any idea how chock a block our courts would be if all similar parents where castigated the way this couple have been?

everyone is saying they'd never leave their 3 year old child alone in an apartment while they went out drinking. if they did they'd be vilified, and rightly so.

being irresponsible on holidays led to the little girls disappearance. being irresponsible on holidays can lead to a child drowning, getting knocked over, all sorts of things- thats why you dont be irresponsible.

as a parent its your job to be responsible, its what being a parent is, so you cant just brush it off as them being a little irresponsible cause they were away on a sun holiday.

AskMyChocolate

El Weirdo wrote: »

And I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that she was abducted. I am also open-minded to all possibilities but I am certainly leaning on the side of one or both of them knowing something about what happened.

It's not evidence per se, but the Smith Family's encounter with a man carrying a small girl, and the fact that that man has not come forward, would lend credence to the abduction theory.

major bill

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are people here flat out saying they would never leave their children alone.
Children have been snatched in all sorts of situations. That is the tragedy here.
These people have been turned into cold murderers (by idiots who should know better) because they were irresponsible on holidays.....do you have any idea how chock a block our courts would be if all similar parents where castigated the way this couple have been?

not many parents would leave their kids alone on holidays in an apartment thats lets be honest was a far enough distance away. This isnt a child wandering off in a supermarket or running out the front door so id doubt many parents would be ''castigated'' the way the mccanns have.
The fact remains these two selfish people(yes they were selfish) are at fault for their daughters dissaperance but will not face up to some of the blame when interviewed i do be sick inside even listening to her explaining how she left the child and how the child was upset over them not been there when her and her siblings were crying.

Wolflikeme

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

It's not evidence per se, but the Smith Family's encounter with a man carrying a small girl, and the fact that that man has not come forward, would lend credence to the abduction theory.

The man they thought they saw was Gerry McCann was it not?

bad2dabone

Happyman42 wrote: »

Child abduction is very very rare and this family where in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I've no desire to get into an arguement with you, but let me just say that if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time but doing the right thing - minding their kids and not leaving the 3 children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country while they were out of sight and earshot having beers and being utterly irresponsibly - then madeline would have been a lot harder for some paedo to take.

dark crystal

thebullkf wrote: »

this one applies to more recent posters on this thread.

I agree. One newbie in particular has been consistantly offensive to posters with viewpoints other than theirs.

thebullkf

Happyman42 wrote: »

What difference does his age make? (He is 4 and a few months, well able for it.) He has been on sleep overs etc etc where I have no idea how he is being looked after what I have to do is 'trust' or I would go mad...the sort of mad I saw in that couples eyes.
Child abduction is very very rare and this family where in the wrong place at the wrong time.

well if he was 16 and you went for a few pints 100m from your room, i don't think its a problem, but leaving a 3yo with 1 year old twins alone, i think is a problem.

i don't just think they were unlucky, unlucky is going to the bookies and your horse falls at the last fence.

Negligent= leaving your 3 kids alone,in an unloocked apartment, the night after the same kid chastises you publicly for not being there when she woke up crying, for an hour! (according to witnesses)

have you ever left your 4 yo on his own and even gone the shop for 30 mins never mind a pint?

_feedback_

irish-stew wrote: »

Was thinking the same thing considering the competition result was announced early.

The little slip saying "thanks for joining us this afternoon.... Eh, of course I mean evening" gave it away at the end too!

I had a really long response written and lost it on my phone.

I thought Tubs done really well. I thought he would just let them come on and sell the book by telling the story, but he actually gave them some awkward questions..

Kate got flustered while telling how she read a story to the kids. Tubs interrupted asking which story.. I don't think he was trying to be CSI RTE, but more so wanted to break the flow of rehearsed answers. He then asked a question direct to Kate (using her name) and Gerry butted in to answer. He also questioned that the window could be opened from outside. Gerry replied yes it could (police say it couldn't).

He pushed as much as he could, fair play Tubs. As another poster said, he gave them enough rope to hang themselves.

Stella89

I have nothing against a couple holding hands, but in my personal opinion . . .

The McCanns do it to portray a couple who " Never argue!" in the words of Kate McCann .

..and to squeeze the others hands when they were beginning to say something inappropriate or go away from the script . . . You will notice this more than once when you look at it back on rteplayer ! .

CK2010

Happyman42 wrote: »

Child abduction is very very rare and this family where in the wrong place at the wrong time.

a million and one other things could have happened though! and if she had died in the apartment as a result you can bet they would have been in serious trouble.
abduction is rare- drowning, getting burnt, falling, choking are not rare and could have happened while the parents were out and unable to prevent it.

Happyman42

CK2010 wrote: »

being irresponsible on holidays led to the little girls disappearance. being irresponsible on holidays can lead to a child drowning, getting knocked over, all sorts of things- thats why you dont be irresponsible.

Nonsense, the child disappeared because somebody unknown 'took her away'.

I have had drinks in the garden in exactly the same circumstances as the McCanns where in- in terms of distance, as my parents probably did with me.

People need to get off Holier than Thou...that poor horse is tired!

deco nate

Stella89 wrote: »

I have nothing against a couple holding hands, but in my personal opinion . . .

The McCanns do it to portray a couple who " Never argue!" in the words of Kate McCann .

..and to squeeze the others hands when they were beginning to say something inappropriate or go away from the script . . . You will notice this more than once when you look at it back on rteplayer ! .

im gonna have another look at it now on the player.
the never argue story is bs.and tbh made me feel sick.

dark crystal

Just a question on the negligence front....the McCanns and Warners both stated there were 'listeners' on the staff, whose job it was to go around the aprtments to listen for crying children.

Doesn't this illustrate the fact that other parents must have been leaving their children unattended in apartments?

Also, does anyone know how frequently did these listeners visit each unattended apartment? Was it more or less than every half hour?

El Weirdo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Child abduction is very very rare and this family where in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes. The pub.

thebullkf

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nonsense, the child disappeared because somebody unknown 'took her away'.

I have had drinks in the garden in exactly the same circumstances as the McCanns where in- in terms of distance, as my parents probably did with me.

People need to get off Holier than Thou...that poor horse is tired!

i assume your door was locked, you know everybody in your street,and you didn't do it 4 nights in a row?

i also assume that the only viable entry/exit was directly by you.

this isn't someone having a house party/gathering and a child been stolen, this is wilfiull neglect. I'm amazed you can't see this, though i'm also amazed i'm replying to this as i've asked you 5 questions,and you declined to answer any.
oh well.

Wolflikeme

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nonsense, the child disappeared because somebody unknown 'took her away'.

I have had drinks in the garden in exactly the same circumstances as the McCanns where in- in terms of distance, as my parents probably did with me.

People need to get off Holier than Thou...that poor horse is tired!

So you're saying it's OK to consistently abandon your kids are go out drinking? The 100m distance is irrelevant (OK if they were outside the door, literally then fine) when you're talking about a 3 year old and two 1 one year olds.

A neighbour had heard them crying for 75mins on a previous occasion too.

thebullkf

El Weirdo wrote: »

Yes. The pub.

post of the day.

bad2dabone

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nonsense, the child disappeared because somebody unknown 'took her away'.

I have had drinks in the garden in exactly the same circumstances as the McCanns where in- in terms of distance, as my parents probably did with me.

People need to get off Holier than Thou...that poor horse is tired!

Not being holier than thou, if you can't see how their irresponsibility lead to the abduction/death of their daughter then nothing I can say will get through to you.
And I suspect you're just trying to excuse your own parenting ideals or lack thereof.

Denners.ie

I haven't read the whole thread but are people actually trying to defend the McCanns for leaving a 3 year old and two 1 year olds unattended?
If true, it is defending the indefensible.

It is unfortunate whatever happened to the girl but that alone is a disgrace. They should be rightly ashamed of themselves imo.