Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Handsome Bob

I caught some of the TV3 show with Vinnie Browne, jesus wept at some of the supposed experts on the panel. A "communications expert" from The Herald, some oul fella who presents Rugby and Twink. I mean, ffs, Twink!

maebee

Gorteenman wrote: »

I am really amazed that people feel it is alright to judge people and make accusations about this couple. Is it really so difficult to believe that they are telling the truth? If your child was taken do you know how you would deal with it? Astounded at some of the things written on here...are we really such a bitter angry nation of narrow minded busybodies?? And how can boards.ie allow some of these allegations be put in a public forum?? Sickened!

Please read the Official police files. The McCanns version of events is riddled with inconsistencies.

El Weirdo

Gorteenman wrote: »

And how can boards.ie allow some of these allegations be put in a public forum?? Sickened!

If you've got a problem with any post, report it.

Kess73

cosanostra wrote: »

The only way G&K could have killed or found her dead and disposed of the body was if the other 2 couples covered for them because there was not enough time between the last time the group seen Madeline and when the police where called that they could have disposed of the body and covered their tracks!
I think they are wrecked with guilt and regret over leaving their kids alone and they will have to live with that forever.

By launching books and doing as many tv appearances as possible they are keeping Madeline in the spotlight and they need to do that if she will ever be found!

Actually there was.

Matthew Oldfield has put in his statement to the police that he never saw Madeline when it was his turn to check the apartment.

Also the David Payne guy says he saw Kate at around 18:00 but the statements given by both Gerry and Kate to the police differ greatly as to how long that guy spoke to Kate.

Gerry said that he was there for about 30 minutes, and Kate says it was just a passing thing of about 30 seconds.

So if Gerry says that guy was missing from the tennis court for 30 minutes, and Kate says he was only with her for 30 seconds, then that guy is not any good as a witness for seeing the child. Also the comments attributed to that David Payne guy in Dr. Katherina Gaspar's statement are a bit disturbing. Plus she gave her statement to the UK police first and that force passed it on to the Portugese police.

It would also mean that the last time anyone in the group, bar the McCanns, could possibly have seen the child was four hours before she reported by Kate as missing.

That's going by the timeline stated by the McCanns in their statements to the police, and by what is in the book.


The time was there to allow for something to have happened to the child in some kind of accident, but the flipside of that is that some of the same timeline was available for an outside person to come in and abduct the child.

Little Acorn

PinkFly wrote: »

shes moved on??? ARGH!!!

ps

didnt they disprove that nobody cudda opened the shutter and the moss wasnt disturbed on the windowsill etc etc .....

Hi PinkFly, I just double checked and you are infact correct,
At approx 1 hour 37 minutes on rte player, Gerry does infact say that he discovered that he could open the shutters from the outside.
Ryan [probably knowing this is a controversial area repeats to him what he just said -"you could open the shutter from outside", to which Gerry says "yeah"
At the start they said that the shutters were broken/jemmied open, and when this was proven to be false, their spokeperson Clarence Mitchell retracted their claim of this.

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.

So I'm not sure why Gerry said this. Kate said the same thing in the Sun too.

Thanks to K9 and Kess73 for replying to my question about the time the police were called.
I did abit more looking.
Just from listening to it again there :

10pm Madeline discovered missing. :
Gerry, Matt, and Russell do a search themselves first for what must be about 10 minutes.
Gerry tells Matt to go to hotel reception and make a call to the police.

[Matt says he thinks it was Fiona asked him to phone the police. She says this too in her testimony.
He doesn't say that he actually phoned them himself.
He says that he asked the reception to phone the police.
He says that at reception they were not that concerned and said things like "oh no, she's probably just after wandering off somewhere"
He says first he does not know if the hotel phoned the police at that time, but that he definitely asked them to.]

Half an hour later, no police so Gerry asks Matt to make another call making it almost 10:40pm.
[Matthew says that at this time Gerry actually went with him to the hotel reception. Matt then believes that that the reception did not phone the police the first time he had asked, but rather that they must have rang Mark Warner management, because he says all these Mark Warner people showed up.
He says that these people were brilliant and that they actually did call the police.]

Gerry says this is the first time the police logged the call - 10:40pm, and that it was another 20 minutes until they came.
[This matches Matthew who says the GNR Police arrived about 11pm. Fiona's testimony also says it was an hour after the disappearance before police showed, making it also 11pm]

Gerry says 'they' [presumably the hotel and/or the GNR Police] after translating the story, and finding out what happened etc, called the Judical Police at about midnight.
I do not know for certain what time the Judicial Police arrived, I have heard about an hour later which would make it approx 1am.

If the above is correct and true it would explain why the Judical Police have their first logged call at 23:50pm.
It wouldn't mean that the police weren't called for nearly 2 hours after,
it would just mean that the Judicial police weren't called until that time, but that the GNR police were called earlier.

Does the link say that it was the GNR police or the Judicial Police that were contacted at 23:50pm?
If it says that it was the GNR police, then I am clueless and cannot explain that.

What I find hard to understand though is how even if the hotel didn't call the police when they were first asked, why did the McCanns or their friends not just use their mobiles? Emergency Call would have connected them through to the local police station.
Was it because of the language barriers that they asked the hotel to ring?
I know that a lot of the other guests became aware there was a missing girl from very early on.
Why did none of these people ring the police? Was it again because of language barriers because they were tourists too?
Was there any locals on the scene who could have called the police?
Did everybody else, including the hotel just presume that she had wandered off nearby, and that is why the police weren't called straight away?

I did in one of my earlier posts say that maybe Madeline did actually wander off and got abducted.
Kate ruled that theory out tonight though when she said that all the curtains, sliding door, and 2 sets of gates with childlocks, were all left perfectly closed behind.
It did spring to mind though, why would an abductor bother closing curtains, doors, and gates behind himself/herself in such a risky situation?

Tbh, if their story regarding when the police were called is correct, it again brings me back to the fact as I mentioned in an earlier post, that they would have less than an hour and a half.
For an accident/death to have happened ,a body to be hidden, the twins put to bed, and to get themselves changed and ready for dinner on time in the space of an hour and a half?
It is starting to sound very implausible.

But again, as I also said earlier, it is only implausible if they and the group are all telling the truth in their testimonies about the timeline, and about events.
If they are ever caught lying, then their whole story falls apart.
I think lies definitely have been told by some of that group especially Jane Tanner, and the whole shutter thing is very fishy.
I also find David Payne's visit to Kate and his supposed last sighting of Madeline to be very inconsistent and just a weird story.

I or nobody though has any real concrete evidence that they are lying about being at the Tapas, or about the checks, so because of that we can only go by what they have told the police.
It is a pity there was no cctv at the Tapas so that there could be little doubt about everybody who was present, and of the checks.

The main thing that is sticking in my mind though is the cadaver and blood dog results. I just don't see how their findings can be so easily dismissed as "ludicrous" by Gerry.
Even though I don't see how it could be possible that they hid a body in the timelines, that's IF their times are correct,
I can't just explain away the dogs findings.
They are probably the main thing that raises all the doubt in my mind. If these were somehow given a plausible explanation, then I would probably be able to just look over some of their other inconsistencies.

Yakult wrote: »

Jeez, the one night they leave the kids on their for 2 hours and the oldest is "kidnapped"...
Coincidence? Im not so sure. But Im not sure the parents did it either. Who knows but only them.

Im not 100% on the details but If the child was kidnapped he/she was playing a dangerous game by doing so.

How did the kidnapper know what room they were in?

How did he/she know if they were alone or not?

How did he/she get into said apartment? Was their evidence of forced entry?

How did he/she avoid every cctv in the area?

*If theirs answers for all of these I'd be interested in reading them.

It wasn't the first night they left the children on their own.
Their first dinner of the holiday, I believe they went to the Millenium restaurant which was further up the road, and they took the children with them.
They found the distance awkward, so one of the group [Rachel] booked the Tapas restaurant for the week for the group, which they felt was closer by, and would be easier to keep checks on the children.
It is my understanding that they were never accompanied by their children on any of the nights that the were there, and that they went there every night.

If there was infact a kidnapper, they could have known their room number from monitoring the McCanns over the course of the week.
They had a pretty set routine regarding the times they left off and collected the children from the kids club each day.
They also had a set routine in that they went for dinner at the same time every night, and they say that there checks followed the routine of being every half hour too.
Kate said too that she later discovered the Tapas receptionist had written a note in the staff book asking that this group be booked for meals for the entire week -the implication being that any of the staff could then know that the children were alone for the week.
I think all this staff have been questioned though.

There was no evidence of forced entry. The McCanns admit that that they left their patio doors unlocked to make doing the checks easier, although they did at the start try and say that the shutters were broke, but this was shown to be untrue/incorrect.

There seems to have been very little cctv evidence spoke about in this case. There was cctv in the Paradiso Beach Bar, but didn't have any bearing on sightings of anybody suspicious.
There does not seem to have been any cctv in the Tapas.

There was cctv in Estrela da Luz resort hotel, but unfortunately when police requested thee cctv footage, it had already been wiped.
Goncalo Amaral believes it could show the person Martin Smith saw carrying the child, and it is a big regret of his that this cctv footage was not able to be seen.
http://express.co.uk/posts/view/210032/Madeleine-McCann-Did-the-camera-hold-vital-clue-

I also think Ryan did a good enough job interviewing them.
He couldn't exactly attack them, as it would probably make future guests refuse to appear on the show if he was known for aggressive interview techniques.
He seemed to play the "I'm your friend, you can talk to me" type of card, but at the same time he did raise most of the main controversies with them in sort of a "friendly, I'll pretend I'm clueless to get you talking to me" type of way.
Like for example, when he repeated back to Gerry in an incredulous voice, "you could open the shutters from outside?",- "that must have been a terrible moment."
And the clueless "was there a listening type thingy, emm where you could call reception to get your children checked?", forcing them to explain the services that were available.
Obviously Ryan is well aware that there was a creche and babysitting facilities, and he would also have known about the shutter controversy, but instead of attacking them with "why didn't you get a babysitter?!", which would have instantly put them on the defensive for other questions, he just played innocent and let them them feel safe and comfortable to talk freely.
Now in fairness, even with this they didn't really say anything that hasn't been said before, or reveal/let slip some new information, but I think his technique was good all the same.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

For easier access perhaps? So the keys wouldn't wake the children? because they never dreamed an intruder would stroll in and take their sleeping child in a holiday resort 100 yards from where they were sitting?

I don't see how an unlocked door points any more to their guilt, tbh. In fact, quite the opposite. It lends more credence to the abduction theory.

there are conflicting reports as to when the police were called. Kate says Matthew Oldfield called the police from his phone 10 minutes after the alarm was raised, Police say they didn't log a call intil 23.50.
No matter, Kate alerted her friends immediately having found Madeleine missing, so it wasn't as if she was left alone in the apartment for any more than a few minutes after the discovery of the disappearance. The staff were also alerted and had started searching before the police arrived.

I repeat, when could she have cleaned up any evidence, hidden the body well enough so that the police wouldn't find it and worked out an abduction story in that space of time with that many people around? Doesn't make any sense to me.

The 23:50 time was verified both by the phone records of the hotel and by the phone records of the emergency services.

The claimed call by the McCanns or one of their friends could not be found as all of them wiped their mobiles before handing them into the police and then checks with their phone providers could not find any sign of a call made to the police from any of the phones provided.

That's not speculation it is all in the police report.


So we have the police saying that the call was made at one time and they have the actual phone records to back it up.

The McCanns claim a very different time but wiped the call history and texts from their phones and their friends did likewise, plus their phone providers could find no evidence of the call on any of the phones.

Yet people will put it down as conflicting views despite there being solid evidence to back only one version?


Maybe with the amount of panic the police were never phoned early on, or a friend said they had rang but never did. Regardless I think I will believe the proven time with regards to the phonecall over the version that has no proof whatsoever.

up for anything

It's the first time I've seen them speaking about it since the early days. I am rapidly revising my former good opinion about them. He really does rule her. It was a bit like watching someone trapped in a cult speaking about someone with the cult leader there.

Her assertion that they NEVER argue or have argued is a bit strange. A couple married that long with first of all the stress of not being able to conceive, the stress of three toddlers under three, and two of them being twins coupled with the stress of both of them holding down very stressful jobs, and then the stress of the 'abduction' - never arguing? Yeah right.

She is struggling with something. Whether is is guilt overall or the guilt of allowing her husband to override her natural concerns about her children or something else entirely I don't know. I didn't get the impression that she believes Madeleine is still alive though even though she paid lip service to the fact that there is hope because there is no proof that she is dead. And as I've said before the fact that she didn't end the interview with a plea to the viewing public to please keep looking for Madeleine says something.

cosanostra

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I caught some of the TV3 show with Vinnie Browne, jesus wept at some of the supposed experts on the panel. A "communications expert" from The Herald, some oul fella who presents Rugby and Twink. I mean, ffs, Twink!

Jim Corr was asked to go on as well but turned it down!

Little Acorn

Kess73 wrote: »

The 23:50 time was verified both by the phone records of the hotel and by the phone records of the emergency services.

The claimed call by the McCanns or one of their friends could not be found as all of them wiped their mobiles before handing them into the police and then checks with their phone providers could not find any sign of a call made to the police from any of the phones provided.

That's not speculation it is all in the police report.


So we have the police saying that the call was made at one time and they have the actual phone records to back it up.

The McCanns claim a very different time but wiped the call history and texts from their phones and their friends did likewise, plus their phone providers could find no evidence of the call on any of the phones.

Yet people will put it down as conflicting views despite there being solid evidence to back only one version?


Maybe with the amount of panic the police were never phoned early on, or a friend said they had rang but never did. Regardless I think I will believe the proven time with regards to the phonecall over the version that has no proof whatsoever.

K, I'm still confused about this. They don't say in their testimonies that they made any emergency call of their mobile.
Matthew says he got hotel reception to call.
He says that they didn't call the first time he asked because they seemed to think that Madeline might just have wandered off, but that they rang their management instead.
Mark Warner management turned up about half an hour later, him and Gerry complained that the police weren't there, and management rang the GNR police at 22:40pm.
The Judicial police were rang at 23:50pm.

Does the record say that the judicial police or the GNR police were rang at 23:50pm?

Because if it just says police records show first call recorded at 23:50, then that could just be the Judicial Police first call record that was made after the GNR had already arrived.

I want to know what the GNR Police first call record is. Gerry says it is 22:40pm and explains why.

It's really bugging me now, as it's all mixed up in my head.

maebee

up for anything wrote: »

It's the first time I've seen them speaking about it since the early days. I am rapidly revising my former good opinion about them. He really does rule her. It was a bit like watching someone trapped in a cult speaking about someone with the cult leader there.

Her assertion that they NEVER argue or have argued is a bit strange. A couple married that long with first of all the stress of not being able to conceive, the stress of three toddlers under three, and two of them being twins coupled with the stress of both of them holding down very stressful jobs, and then the stress of the 'abduction' - never arguing? Yeah right.



She is struggling with something. Whether is is guilt overall or the guilt of allowing her husband to override her natural concerns about her children or something else entirely I don't know. I didn't get the impression that she believes Madeleine is still alive though even though she paid lip service to the fact that there is hope because there is no proof that she is dead. And as I've said before the fact that she didn't end the interview with a plea to the viewing public to please keep looking for Madeleine says something.

She can't keep up with her own lies. This is what she says in her book:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042099/McCanns-rowed-slept-separate-rooms-night-Madeleine-vanished.html

up for anything

maebee wrote: »

.

I am seeking legal representation over how you have misquoted me. I will possibly sue you for untold amounts for trauma. :D

El Weirdo

up for anything wrote: »

I am seeking legal representation over how you have misquoted me. I will possibly sue you for untold amounts for trauma. :D

You should set up some sort of fund in order to raise money for your legal fees. Or write a book.:pac:

maebee

up for anything wrote: »

I am seeking legal representation over how you have misquoted me. I will possibly sue you for untold amounts for trauma. :D

LOL

Sorry bout that ufa. I tried a few times to un-italicise my post but just couldn't get it right.

up for anything

El Weirdo wrote: »

You should set up some sort of fund in order to raise money for your legal fees. Or write a book.:pac:

I have already done both and talks of a film are in the pipeline.

up for anything

maebee wrote: »

LOL

Sorry bout that ufa. I tried a few times to un-italicise my post but just couldn't get it right.

Don't worry about it. We all make expensive mistakes.

AudreyHepburn

:rolleyes:

Wolflikeme wrote: »

This.

I've read the thread over the last few days.

Open minded? Your blinkered at best, at worst, totally ignorant.

You've continuously ignored arguments. Have you actually gone and read any of the links presented in this thread? If you have I don't see how you could still have no doubt they'd nothing to do with it.

No evidence to suggest they've nothing to do with it? Well there's zero evidence of an abduction and a ton of circumstantial evidence against the McCann's.

Seriously, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone that has gone and read the McCann files etc still has NO DOUBT they'd anything to do with it then I'm lost for words!!

bad2dabone wrote: »

I'm sick of this type of comment to be honest, and i don't mean it personally Audrey, but come on, leaving 3 small kids on their own in an unlocked room where you can't see them is not a mistake, its neglect.

It's far more serious than a mere "mistake".

Excusing their utter failure towards their daughter by calling it a mistake is wrong in my opinion. Again I don't mean it personally towards you but I wish people would stop trying to excuse what they did.

I don't think they killed her, i'd be horrified if it turns out that she was killed by them. I don't like Gerry, or indeed Kate. But I don't take them for murderers or monsters. Having said that there's something nigglingly wrong about the case.

DerekWaters wrote: »

Haha absolute classic!!! What have you seen that has convinced you there was an abduction???

British and Portugese police found no evidence to support that theory.......

They did find evidence however that pointed towards a dead body in the apartment.........

Degsy wrote: »

Well if they didnt kill her,where's the child?

Abducted?

Pah!

TheZohan wrote: »

Yeah but a couple of days ago I told you that I live in NYC and you believed me!

Why wouldn't I believe you? It's what your location says and you were not impressed when I questioned so I guessed I must be wrong.

Did you lie to me? Was I in fact right to question you?

Oh ok fine.....I'm obviously wrong. I'm clearly just a blinkered ignorant fool who hasn't a clue what she's talking about.

You're all so more intelligent than me so clearly you are right.:rolleyes:

For christ's sake get over yourselves!

ilovelamp2000

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

:rolleyes:









Why wouldn't I believe you? It's what your location says and you were not impressed when I questioned so I guessed I must be wrong.

Did you lie to me? Was I in fact right to question you?

Oh ok fine.....I'm obviously wrong. I'm clearly just a blinkered ignorant fool who hasn't a clue what she's talking about.

You're all so more intelligent than me so clearly you are right.:rolleyes:

For christ's sake get over yourselves!

There there

*pats Audrey on the head*

El Weirdo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Why wouldn't I believe you? It's what your location says and you were not impressed when I questioned so I guessed I must be wrong.

Did you lie to me? Was I in fact right to question you?

The McCann's aren't impressed when hard questions are asked of them, either.

Are they lying to us? Are we in fact right to question them?

Little Acorn

Can somebody please answer me about missing child report to the police?

Which police records show the first call at 23:50pm.

If it is the Judicial Police then there is an explanation given for that by the group.

If it is the GNR Police phone records, then the McCanns have lied somewhere because the GNR records should be 22:40pm.

So which police records is it?

Can somebody please post me a link to the official call records for the GNR Police please, because I can't find them yet.
Thanks to anyone who can help.

bad2dabone

bit of an over reaction to my post Audrey.

ejmaztec

I was hoping that Tubridy would get kidnapped if the McCanns stopped looking at him for a few seconds.:(

AudreyHepburn

deco nate wrote: »

just watchin tlls again and gerry said they didnt know the number for
the police,999 works.but everyone knows also its 911 ffs it says it every were.
ffs i knew this number years before.just read the resort leaflets!

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.

AudreyHepburn

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

There there

*pats Audrey on the head*

Less of the condescending crap please.

Methinks I'm not the ignorant one here.

AudreyHepburn

bad2dabone wrote: »

bit of an over reaction to my post Audrey.

It wasn't just yours and I was reacting to people questioning my intelligence and tell me flat outI was wrong when they know no such thing.

More frustration than over-reaction tbh.

AudreyHepburn

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

El Weirdo wrote: »

The McCann's aren't impressed when hard questions are asked of them, either.

Are they lying to us? Are we in fact right to question them?

Nor would I be if I'd been asked the same questions repeatedly and answer them repeatedly to no effect.

Question them all you want, just don't jump to conclusions without proper evidence.

Kess73

Little Acorn wrote: »

K, I'm still confused about this. They don't say in their testimonies that they made any emergency call of their mobile.
Matthew says he got hotel reception to call.
He says that they didn't call the first time he asked because they seemed to think that Madeline might just have wandered off, but that they rang their management instead.
Mark Warner management turned up about half an hour later, him and Gerry complained that the police weren't there, and management rang the GNR police at 22:40pm.
The Judicial police were rang at 23:50pm.

Does the record say that the judicial police or the GNR police were rang at 23:50pm?Because if it just says police records show first call recorded at 23:50, then that could just be the Judicial Police first call record that was made after the GNR had already arrived.

I want to know what the GNR Police first call record is. Gerry says it is 22:40pm and explains why.

It's really bugging me now, as it's all mixed up in my head.

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.

bad2dabone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It wasn't just yours and I was reacting to people questioning my intelligence and tell me flat outI was wrong when they know no such thing.

More frustration than over-reaction tbh.

fair enough.

ladypip

These were the services available to them that the decided against and instead left their children alone.

Evening Creche/ Entertainment
We operate an evening drop in creche service on six evenings for the younger children (4 months to 5 years) from 7.30-11:30pm. Within the creche we provide a "sleep" room with cots for infants and rest beds with sleeping bags for the younger children. For 4-5year olds we show an early childrens film at 7:30pm in a separate room set up with bean bags and sleeping bags so that children can fall asleep. Parents are welcome to settle their infants and younger children prior to 7:30pm in the sleep room providing they remain with their children until 7:30pm. For For the older children (6-17years) we provide a fully supervised entertainment programme until 10.30pm

or

Baby Sitting
Extra baby-sitting can be arranged in resort through the Childcare Manager from €12 per hour. Please note that babysitters are in high demand, and whilst every effort is made to accommodate requests, this service is subject to staff availability and cannot be guaranteed. Please give at least 24 hours notice if you require this service.

Source Mark Warner Website.http://www.markwarner.co.uk/why-choose-us/sun/childrens-clubs

and

http://www.markwarner.co.uk/sun/portugal/ocean-club/t/childcare#resortAccordion_item5_Main

Why didn't they avail of any of those services it boggles my mind. Why are people defending their obvious neglect of their very young children?

I'm also sick of the you mustn't have children brigade. I can tell you i have a 3 yr old son and their is NO WAY absolutely none i would leave him alone in an apartment here or abroad for even 1 minute let alone 3-4 hrs!

This was no mistake on their part they planned to leave their three children alone in an unlocked apartment and they done it for FIVE nights in a row.

Whatever happened to that little girl (and im not entirely convinced they don't know or weren't involved) it was a fault of theirs to leave her alone.

Tipsy McSwagger

I have looked at both sides of the story, kidnapped or accidental death, and because the time span of a couple of hours to get rid of the body doesn't seem plausible to me i am willing to give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt.

Happyman42

El Weirdo wrote: »

That's fine. But I think you'll find that most people on here are trying to work with the facts. It's the facts of the case that has people so worked up..

Are people so stupid and naive that they think that they have all the facts of this case?
Ever wonder why court cases take so long? Well let me tell you why they do; they don't 'amateur physcoanalyse' in a court of law, they don't allow witnesses to 'state what they think are facts WITHOUT INTERROGATION'...look up the dictionary definition of ( 'to prosecute a case')
And most importantly; 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.

El Weirdo wrote: »

FWIW, I'm not totally convinced that the McCanns have anything to do with Madeline's disappearance. But I do feel that they are covering for something even bigger than leaving the kids on their own that night.
I am convinced that they do have questions to answer.

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

El Weirdo wrote: »

I don't think I, or any other parent in this thread, have ever said that they were perfect parents. Please direct me to the post/s if I am wrong here.

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.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Edit:To go back on something in your earlier post.

I could say the same for the people who seem to be convinced of their innocence. Works both ways.

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.
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.