Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

hondasam

iamwhoiam wrote: »

, I didnt cop that and wondered why they had left them so late to interview .

I believe They Don't do live interviews. Turbidy made the mistake of saying afternoon but changed mid sentence to night.

ppink

I was jsut wondering about the detective Amaral. So he is now doing 18 months for colluding with the perputrators on another case and lying.

it make me wonder if the forensics were actually right in this case or if there was ever a second set taken by the UK police. Forensics is the big issue here after all.
if it was "organised" that nothing be found except the mccanns prints??

ISDW

ppink wrote: »

I was jsut wondering about the detective Amaral. So he is now doing 18 months for colluding with the perputrators on another case and lying.

it make me wonder if the forensics were actually right in this case or if there was ever a second set taken by the UK police. Forensics is the big issue here after all.
if it was "organised" that nothing be found except the mccanns prints??

I think thats why this case is so difficult, personally I don't know who to believe, there are so many things that the police should have done but appear not to have. Or to have maybe done wrongly, such as not taking the cuddly toy for examination immediately.

A cynical person could view the whole thing as a nightmare for the Portugese tourist industry, and by extension their whole economy. A little girl disappears from a holiday complex, tourists would probably stay away. However, try and prove it was the foreign parents that did it, there would be no reason for tourists not to go there.

There is so much confusing information from both 'sides'.

homeOwner

I watched the McCanns on TLLS on friday night and I didnt take away from it what most of the posters here did.

Gerry saying "read the book" was in response to a question from Ryan that really there was no short answer to. it was the start of his answer. I took Gerry's response as being, read the book for the full version but here is the short version.....

Kate looks like a broken woman.

I started reading this thread believing that the McCanns were not involved in their daughter's dissapearance (apart from being negligent and leaving the children on their own).
From reading some of the posts here I began to change my mind and think there was something more to it.
But as I read more and more I see that alot of the points being raised here are simply not the facts.

Here are some:
1. Gerry admitted to sedating his kids.
It was reported by an unnamed person in the PJ and does not appear on any interviews or transcripts. The fact that Maddy asked Kate why she didnt come when they cried the night before lends credibility to their statement that they did not sedate their kids.

2. The police were not called until 23:50
According to the McCanns and the portugeuse detective who wrote the book, the local police were called at 22:40 and arrived just after 23:00. Gerry asked one of the tapas 9 to tell the management to call the police just after 10pm when the alarm was raised and they didnt. They called MW management instead and then called the police after Gerry asked a second time to go call the police.

3. The window shutter couldn't be opened from the outside.
The window shutter could be opened from the outside. The PJ said an intruder couldnt leave from that window without leaving evidence and disturbing the lichen that was growing on it. They didnt find any evidence of it being disturbed. This does not mean that it didnt happen. Just that they didnt find any evidence of it happening. Kate said she closed the window and shutters when she found Madeline missing.

4. Kate washed the cuddle cat destroying evidence.
Kate said she washed it 70 days later as it was filthy. The police never asked for it nor bagged it for testing.

5. They didnt look for Madeline.
Gerry went looking for her with some of the tapas 9 just after Kate reported her missing. They searched the streets around the apartment calling her name and went downt to the beach. They came back to the apartment and Gerry then enquired where the police were because he had asked for someone (Matthew?) to call them but they hadnt arrived.

6. The sniffer dogs detected the smell of a dead body and DNA matching Madeline's was found in the apartment.
From what I have read sniffer dog results are only used in conjection with other evidence as it is only 33% effective (I read that recently somewhere). When shown the video of the dogs at the car, Kate apparently came away with the conclusion that they were leading the dog to their car away from other cars that the dog had initially been heading to and that no sane person could think that is conclusive proof. When interviewed as a suspect Gerry asked to see the DNA report and the police then blustered about it and didnt produce it. The evidence was reported to be inconclusive for her DNA.

7. The tapas 9 change their stories and timelines.
I would think this is normal and shows it was unrehearsed. If you asked me to relate the events of an evening out with my friends at the weekend just passed I would be hard pushed to recall who left the table at what time to go to the bathroom. If I had time then later to think about it and relate events to other events I might be more accurate. Jane Tanner is the only exception to this. Her change of description of the man she said she saw some months later is not credible. She is the only one of the group that I find hard to believe.

8. They have refused to answer some questions that the police want to ask them.
They were being treated as suspects and I dont blame them for not answering anything. At that point the police had decided they were guilty and had stopped looking for Madeline. They left the country as soon as they could. I would do the same thing.

9. They could ask for the case to be re-opened but they havent.
Would you really want the same police who accused you of killing your daughter to re-open the investigation? There is no new evidence in the case. It is now being investigated by Scotland Yard after annocement last week by David Cameron.

Anyway thats my 2 cents. I have gone back to my original belief that they were not invloved.

I can only imagine how guilty they feel and that they would do anything to go back and change the decisions they made that night. They certainly let Madeline down. And as someone else posted, they were very lucky all 3 kids were not taken.

Rubberlegs

Was in Portugal, close enough to where Madeline went missing, the week after it happened. Can remember lots of posters up everywhere, but was surprised at the lack of police presence around. It certainly made me grip my daughter's hand that bit tighter the whole time we were there. I am not as well up on all the facts as some posters are, and can only say I'm really not sure what to believe. Think it goes without saying that it was completely negligent to leave three young kids alone, no matter how close by they were. If it's true Madeline was abducted through their selfish actions, then this is something they have to deal with for the rest of their lives. If you don't want to bring your kids to dinner with you on holidays, get them a babysitter, its that simple. Or why didn't they take it in turns, as in one set of parents mind all the kids, while the others went out? There were enough adults there to do this. I really want to believe Kate and Gerry had nothing to do with this and she's alive somewhere being looked after. But on the other hand, I think its far more likely that the child is dead. They did come across as very strange and detached and mechanical on the Late show, but maybe its years of answering the same questions. What really put me off was Kate insisting very matter of factly that they don't row. WTF:eek:. With all thats gone on, they haven't rowed ? Definitely the smell of BS there! Thought Gerry seemed very domineering when it came to answering the questions, Kate often didn't get a word in edgeways. I have a feeling that this is a case there will sadly never be an outcome to. One sure thing is obviously there is someone out there who knows exactly what happened, be it the McCann's themselves or some abductor.

up for anything

homeOwner wrote: »

4. Kate washed the cuddle cat destroying evidence.
Kate said she washed it 7 days later as it was filthy. The police never asked for it nor bagged it for testing.

After sitting on the fence and then standing on both sides of it I'm not sure any more what I think.

The above is one of the things though that I find strange. If a cuddly toy was the last thing 'my missing child' may have touched I would never ever wash it, no matter how manky it got - symbolically to me it would be like washing the child out of my life.

homeOwner

up for anything wrote: »

After sitting on the fence and then standing on both sides of it I'm not sure any more what I think.

The above is one of the things though that I find strange. If a cuddly toy was the last thing 'my missing child' may have touched I would never ever wash it, no matter how manky it got - symbolically to me it would be like washing the child out of my life.

Perhaps, but she would have had so many other things belonging to her with her smell on it like the clothes she wore the previous day, her bed clothes at home, her blankets, her pillow case. I might not have done the same thing but then again I might have if I was carrying it all the time. Maybe it didnt smell of Madeline anymore but smelt of the beach or of old food or anything and she wanted it to smell clean. Who knows. It certainly isnt as ominous as other posters have made out, like she was trying to hide something.

hondasam

homeOwner wrote: »

4. Kate washed the cuddle cat destroying evidence.
Kate said she washed it 7 days later as it was filthy. The police never asked for it nor bagged it for testing.

I thought she said seventy days.

metrovelvet

The washing of the cuddle toy is distracting and has nothing to do with the investigation. There are a million different reasons why she washed it. No bearing on culpability imo.

ppink

hondasam wrote: »

I thought she said seventy days.

so did I actually!

homeOwner

hondasam wrote: »

I thought she said seventy days.

That was a typo, I meant to write 70 days. I'll go back and edit the post if I can.

123balltv

I'm not surprised she washed the teddy she's a cold, hearted Mother
well you'd have to be to leave your 3 babies alone in an apartment with no locked doors the child told her Mother she was crying for her the previous nights My God how could she be so selfish

Silver Moon

the shutters CANNOT be opened from the outside. That is the whole point of them. These type of shutters are used all over Portugal and Spain for that very reason. If Gerry McCann wants us to believe otherwise he and his friends should agree to return for a reconstruction then he can show us how he did it.

metrovelvet

Silver Moon wrote: »

the shutters CANNOT be opened from the outside. That is the whole point of them. These type of shutters are used all over Portugal and Spain for that very reason. If Gerry McCann wants us to believe otherwise he and his friends should agree to return for a reconstruction then he can show us how he did it.

They claimed on the LLS that they can be openned from the outside.

But why would even need to use the window if the porch doors were open?

GMCANN wants to take over the investigation.

Ok the POrtugese could have done things a lot better than they did.

ppink

up for anything wrote: »

Just because there is a facility there for it under UK law (and I'm not sure if there is), it doesn't mean to say it would be utilised in their case or indeed in many cases. If it was in their case then they would have to have had prosecuted all the members of the Tapas 9 that had included their own children in 'babysitting' scheme. I really could not see that happening.

there have been cases in the Uk where there have been convictions under the 1933 Act for Children and Young Persons for neglect. it appears to be sparsly used for some reason though.

Mistyeyes321

homeOwner wrote: »

I watched the McCanns on TLLS on friday night and I didnt take away from it what most of the posters here did.

Gerry saying "read the book" was in response to a question from Ryan that really there was no short answer to. it was the start of his answer. I took Gerry's response as being, read the book for the full version but here is the short version.....

Kate looks like a broken woman.

I started reading this thread believing that the McCanns were not involved in their daughter's dissapearance (apart from being negligent and leaving the children on their own).
From reading some of the posts here I began to change my mind and think there was something more to it.
But as I read more and more I see that alot of the points being raised here are simply not the facts.

Here are some:
1. Gerry admitted to sedating his kids.
It was reported by an unnamed person in the PJ and does not appear on any interviews or transcripts. The fact that Maddy asked Kate why she didnt come when they cried the night before lends credibility to their statement that they did not sedate their kids.

2. The police were not called until 23:50
According to the McCanns and the portugeuse detective who wrote the book, the local police were called at 22:40 and arrived just after 23:00. Gerry asked one of the tapas 9 to tell the management to call the police just after 10pm when the alarm was raised and they didnt. They called MW management instead and then called the police after Gerry asked a second time to go call the police.

3. The window shutter couldn't be opened from the outside.
The window shutter could be opened from the outside. The PJ said an intruder couldnt leave from that window without leaving evidence and disturbing the lichen that was growing on it. They didnt find any evidence of it being disturbed. This does not mean that it didnt happen. Just that they didnt find any evidence of it happening. Kate said she closed the window and shutters when she found Madeline missing.

4. Kate washed the cuddle cat destroying evidence.
Kate said she washed it 70 days later as it was filthy. The police never asked for it nor bagged it for testing.

5. They didnt look for Madeline.
Gerry went looking for her with some of the tapas 9 just after Kate reported her missing. They searched the streets around the apartment calling her name and went downt to the beach. They came back to the apartment and Gerry then enquired where the police were because he had asked for someone (Matthew?) to call them but they hadnt arrived.

6. The sniffer dogs detected the smell of a dead body and DNA matching Madeline's was found in the apartment.
From what I have read sniffer dog results are only used in conjection with other evidence as it is only 33% effective (I read that recently somewhere). When shown the video of the dogs at the car, Kate apparently came away with the conclusion that they were leading the dog to their car away from other cars that the dog had initially been heading to and that no sane person could think that is conclusive proof. When interviewed as a suspect Gerry asked to see the DNA report and the police then blustered about it and didnt produce it. The evidence was reported to be inconclusive for her DNA.

7. The tapas 9 change their stories and timelines.
I would think this is normal and shows it was unrehearsed. If you asked me to relate the events of an evening out with my friends at the weekend just passed I would be hard pushed to recall who left the table at what time to go to the bathroom. If I had time then later to think about it and relate events to other events I might be more accurate. Jane Tanner is the only exception to this. Her change of description of the man she said she saw some months later is not credible. She is the only one of the group that I find hard to believe.

8. They have refused to answer some questions that the police want to ask them.
They were being treated as suspects and I dont blame them for not answering anything. At that point the police had decided they were guilty and had stopped looking for Madeline. They left the country as soon as they could. I would do the same thing.

9. They could ask for the case to be re-opened but they havent.
Would you really want the same police who accused you of killing your daughter to re-open the investigation? There is no new evidence in the case. It is now being investigated by Scotland Yard after annocement last week by David Cameron.

Anyway thats my 2 cents. I have gone back to my original belief that they were not invloved.

I can only imagine how guilty they feel and that they would do anything to go back and change the decisions they made that night. They certainly let Madeline down. And as someone else posted, they were very lucky all 3 kids were not taken.

Great Post with some interesting Point's, I haven't made my mind up tbh like yourself, When reading the Above how could anyone really?!

So much Conflicting information from both sides, I honestly think there has been fault on both sides & neither one will give an Inch...Which is very Sad considering a Small Child's Life has depended on these ppl!! What Chance did she stand against all this Fiasco?...Just one big Huge Mess..

Both sides need to start telling the Truth...As the saying Goes, There are Three sides to every Story, Your Side, Their side, & the Truth!!

Mistyeyes321

up for anything wrote: »

I don't know why people keep saying this. It's not true.

How many children have died in the UK from parental abuse and neglect. Children that were on the at risk register, children that had social workers, files inches thick, numerous visits to casualty and GPs. Their parents weren't charged in most cases until they had actually caused the child's death.

Yes but I think your just refering to the Cases that are made Public, Many Many Parent's are taken through the Court's for Neglect just because it isn't in the Paper's doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

I can assure you it does! How else would there be so Many children in Care homes & foster homes?!

iamwhoiam

homeOwner wrote: »

I watched the McCanns on TLLS on friday night and I didnt take away from it what most of the posters here did.


3. The window shutter couldn't be opened from the outside.
The window shutter could be opened from the outside. The PJ said an intruder couldnt leave from that window without leaving evidence and disturbing the lichen that was growing on it. They didnt find any evidence of it being disturbed. This does not mean that it didnt happen. Just that they didnt find any evidence of it happening. Kate said she closed the window and shutters when she found Madeline missing.
. They left the country as soon as they could. I would do the same thing.
.

I didnt touch the shutters in Apartment 5a so cant swear on a bible that they didnt open from outside .But the looked the same as every other shutter in the complex and the shutter used extensively in Portugal and they do not open from outside .It is part of their purpose to protect from heat and as security .

iamwhoiam

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok the POrtugese could have done things a lot better than they did.

Listen to Mark Cagneys interview on ireland AM , he obviously know best and slates the Portugese police . How would he know what they did and didnt do or his he simply following like a sheep what the Mc Canns said .
Silly man ,.

metrovelvet

Mark Cagney
Ryan Tubridy
Piers Morgan
Oprah Winfrey

Noticable absence from Jeremy Kyle.

homeOwner

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I didnt touch the shutters in Apartment 5a so cant swear on a bible that they didnt open from outside .But the looked the same as every other shutter in the complex and the shutter used extensively in Portugal and they do not open from outside .It is part of their purpose to protect from heat and as security .

I have stayed in apartments in Spain and Portugal too and the shutters on windows in all cases were not the same. So I dont know that it is true that all of them do not open from outside.

There is a documentary made by the PJ detective (the one who wrote the book) its on youtube. I cant check it now but does anyone know if he says the window cant be opened? I watched a bit of it last week and I thought I heard some explaination of the window being able to be opened from outside. I'll check it later this evening and post again because I think its one of those facts that is easily checked. It either can be opened or it cant. The McCanns have said it can be opened, it doesnt seem to make sense to lie about something that the police can verify.

hondasam

metrovelvet wrote: »

Mark Cagney
Ryan Tubridy
Piers Morgan
Oprah Winfrey

Noticable absence from Jeremy Kyle.

Vincent Browne is the only that should interview them.

he would get the answers we all want to hear.

Kess73

metrovelvet wrote: »

Mark Cagney
Ryan Tubridy
Piers Morgan
Oprah Winfrey

Noticable absence from Jeremy Kyle.

What exactly would he bring to anything?


The above four did nothing, for me anyway, through their line of questioning/chat that made the McCanns look anymore guilty or anymore innocent.


As far as any chat show or network goes, the McCanns equal ratings gold. I don't think any show sees their innocence/guilt as an important factor. In fact I think if there was no doubt that they were innocent that the tv shows and papers would have far less interest in them. It is the the chance, no matter how slight, that they could be guilty of something that brings in the punters to watch the shows.

That element of doubt is what attracts/interests people. This thread being a great example of that.

ISDW

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Yes but I think your just refering to the Cases that are made Public, Many Many Parent's are taken through the Court's for Neglect just because it isn't in the Paper's doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

I can assure you it does! How else would there be so Many children in Care homes & foster homes?!

Yes, many children do get taken off the parents for neglect, but not as many as there probably should be. As you say, there are a lot of children in the care system, so many that it can't cope, there aren't spaces with most local authorities to take every child that is at risk into care. So social services try to work with the families to keep the children at home, but safe - thats the theory anyway.

The McCanns wouldn't voluntarily let their children go into care I wouldn't think, so social services would have to go to court for a care order, which I really don't think any judge would grant. They would need to show that the children are in danger, or are being neglected. Leaving them like they did on holiday may be viewed as neglectful, but it wouldn't be enough under the law for them to removed.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

What exactly would he bring to anything?


The above four did nothing, for me anyway, through their line of questioning/chat that made the McCanns look anymore guilty or anymore innocent.


As far as any chat show or network goes, the McCanns equal ratings gold. I don't think any show sees their innocence/guilt as an important factor. In fact I think if there was no doubt that they were innocent that the tv shows and papers would have far less interest in them. It is the the chance, no matter how slight, that they could be guilty of something that brings in the punters to watch the shows.

That element of doubt is what attracts/interests people. This thread being a great example of that.

Well according to Gerry Mc Cann this morning all those who hang around the internet discussing it are very sad people with sad lives . Mark Cagney nodded like a dog in a car window to everything they said .He sure wasnt remaining neutral .

ISDW

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Well according to Gerry Mc Cann this morning all those who hang around the internet discussing it are very sad people with sad lives . Mark Cagney nodded like a dog in a car window to everything they said .He sure wasnt remaining neutral .

Well that attitude from him is disappointing, as surely the whole point of them publishing the book and doing the whole chat show circuit is to keep it in the public eye, and to get it discussed?

Little Acorn

mrsbyrne wrote: »

i haven't altogether ruled out the ""woke and wandered" theory myself, spanisheyes. its never discussed on boards because it doesnt totally support the "evil McCanns" theory.

It was discussed. I did believe myself at one stage that it was a possibility.
Kate McCann herself convinced me otherwise though on the late late show.
She said it was impossible.
She said that she knew there was no way her 3 year old daughter, would have pulled back the curtains on the sliding door, closed them perfectly behind her,
pulled open the sliding doors, closed them behind her,
gotten to the first gate , opened it, closed it behind her,
gotten to second gate , opened it and closed it behind her.
Gerry said the gates had childlocks on them too.

So when Kate explained that the curtains, doors, and 2 sets of gates with childlocks had all been found, undisturbed/closed, I have to agree with Kate that it does sound near impossible that 3 year old Madeline had simply woken and wandered out.

It does also make me wonder though how an abductor in what Gerry describes as a high risk situation, would have the time or be bothered about making sure that all curtains/doors and gates were closed behind him/her. Especially as they would have been carrying a child in their arms at the time. Surely they would have been trying to get out of there as fast as possible?

metrovelvet

Little Acorn wrote: »

It was discussed. I did believe myself at one stage that it was a possibility.
Kate McCann herself convinced me otherwise though on the late late show.
She said it was impossible.
She said that she knew there was no way her 3 year old daughter, would have pulled back the curtains on the sliding door, closed them perfectly behind her,
pulled open the sliding doors, closed them behind her,
gotten to the first gate , opened it, closed it behind her,
gotten to second gate , opened it and closed it behind her.
Gerry said the gates had childlocks on them too.

So when Kate explained that the curtains, doors, and 2 sets of gates with childlocks had all been found, undisturbed/closed, I have to agree with Kate that it does sound near impossible that 3 year old Madeline had simply woken and wandered out.

It does also make me wonder though how an abductor in what Gerry describes as a high risk situation, would have the time or be bothered about making sure that all curtains/doors and gates were closed behind him/her. Especially as they would have been carrying a child in their arms at the time. Surely they would have been trying to get out of there as fast as possible?

You know how they had the time, because NO ONE was checking on the kids contrary to what Tapas 8 report. The abductor had an hour and half to do this.

homeOwner

Little Acorn wrote: »

It does also make me wonder though how an abductor in what Gerry describes as a high risk situation, would have the time or be bothered about making sure that all curtains/doors and gates were closed behind him/her. Especially as they would have been carrying a child in their arms at the time. Surely they would have been trying to get out of there as fast as possible?

The McCanns maintain that the left by the window in the bedroom and not by the patio doors.

It has been said that it was not possible to open the shutter (and/or the window) from the outside so it would be interesting to find out if that was the case.

Although the intruder could have entered via the patio closed it and curtains behind them and then left by the window, if in fact the window/shutter could not be opened from the outside.

Little Acorn

metrovelvet wrote: »

You know how they had the time, because NO ONE was checking on the kids contrary to what Tapas 8 report. The abductor had an hour and half to do this.

You could be right, it's definitely possible.
I don't know yet if there's any other witnesses to the group's account of the checks. Like I don't know yet if the Tapas workers have verified the groups account or not?