Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

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?

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.