Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Kess73

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 .

Yep. Very sad people Gerry, but what does that say for people who accused the wrong man. Said a number of times that the man in question, Murat, was guilty, and did everything they could to pin the blame on that man even before the police had finished questioning that man.


An innocent man had his life in the balance thanks to lies said by the McCanns, and has since had many death threads thanks to the lies said about him.

Yet that man has yet to get any kind of apology, be it a direct one or through a third party, from the McCanns over the lies said about him.


I guess it is ok for Kate McCann to say what she likes about another person's guilt as she sees it, but it is wrong for anyone else to look at the Madeline story and have doubts based on actual logged events and actual police reports.

Sorry Gerry but if it is fine for your wife and yourself to condemn a man for something he did not do and to make sure that knowledge made it to the media through your friends and family, then it sure as hell is fine for people to specualte based on what you and your wife have siad, and on what facts are available.

Another thing Gerry should consider that it is them that say that they want to keep the story alive, so people talking about it in offices, internet forums, on the bus or wherever are doing just that, regardless of whether the people talking or not believe the McCanns stories.

Maybe Gerry would prefer if people stopped talking about the story and just ignored the McCanns and did not buy their book.


Seems that do as I say but not as I do is the McCann philosophy.



As for Cagney nodding along. Maybe that was because he really believes them, in which case that is fine as we are all entitled to our opinion, or maybe he was nodding along to keep them happy as them being on the show means big ratings.

Kess73

Little Acorn wrote: »

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?

Some of the bar staff and the quiz person say they do not remember the constant leaving for checks on the children, but unless those people were staring at the McCann and friends for the whole night, that account cannot be seen as very reliable imho.

The quiz master one is a bit more reliable than the bar staff/workers though as she came down and spent some time at the McCanns table when the quiz ended, and she claimed that she only remembered Gerry leaving the table, and her time at their table coincided with the time that one of the friends was meant to have checked. Think it was Matthew Oldfield's check on the children that her statement contradicted.


Now it could be possible that they have lied through their teeth about the checks on the children and got the friends to say they checked as well, so that they looked like they did not leave the children alone for as long. Which would still mean that their story of an abduction could be true, but at this point if they were to change their story in such a dramatic manner it would cast way too much doubt over everything else they have said.

AudreyHepburn

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Your ideas here are based entirely on assuming that if the child was killed (which I'm not suggesting happened), she was killed at the time it's alleged she disappeared, as opposed to beforehand and the disappearance later staged. You also assume that the hypothesised killing by any person was a murder, rather than an accident.

You also don't understand the word "feasible" - it just means possible and doesn't imply the writer must now how. You also have a conclusion in your head with absolutely no knowledge of the facts.

A lot people seem to have that problem tbh.

mrsbyrne wrote: »

so kate mccann went to check at some stage during the evening. found her dead, didnt panic (why would you panic its only your IVF conceived first-born beloved daughter). went to the open all night hardware store right across the road (completely unnoticed) bought enough acid to dissolve a 3 year old. went back (unnoticed) dissolved her little girl (completely unpanicked, as cool as a cucumber) poured the acid down the toilet, and reappeared screaming blue murder a few minutes later. and the acid salesman suffered a memory blackout.
well at least youve made an attempt at a theory, albeit helped by me. more than can be said for some other posters here.(you know who you are):p

K-9 wrote: »

Actually there is no simple explanation in this case.

There is evidence of paedophile tendencies with David Payne and with the discrepancies in statements it would be rather easy to put that forward as the answer, together with other stuff in the holiday.

It's possible and a simple answer. There are too many simple answers to this case!

So now Gerry hangs out with, and possibly is, a paedophile( if what I read in the statments about David Payne is true) and Kate melted Madeleine in acid :eek:

Good god, people are really reaching now. There is no proof for either of these.

DerekWaters

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 .

Yeah Gerry would love us all to believe his bull****, if Turbety had done his homework properly he could have caught him out on quite a few occasions during that interview.

DerekWaters

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A lot people seem to have that problem tbh.





So now Gerry hangs out with, and possibly is, a paedophile( if what I read in the statments about David Payne is true) and Kate melted Madeleine in acid :eek:

Good god, people are really reaching now. There is no proof for either of these.

Those theories have as much credibilty as the abduction one which you seem quite happy to go along with.

yosemite_sam

DerekWaters wrote: »

Yeah Gerry would love us all to believe his bull****, if Turbety had done his homework properly he could have caught him out on quite a few occasions during that interview.

The questions would have been prearranged, I missed the interveiw but I am pretty sure there would have been a pre agreed line of questioning with a couple as media savvy as the [EMAIL="Mcann@s"]Mcann's[/EMAIL]

prinz

Have no interest in getting into whether Kate and Gerry were behind the disappearance or whatever happened but I have to say from DAY 1 I have had an instant gut reaction dislike/suspicion to the McCann parents and TLLS appearance did absolutely nothing to change that. Gut reaction again is that something is most definitely amiss.

AudreyHepburn

DerekWaters wrote: »

Those theories have as much credibilty as the abduction one which you seem quite happy to go along with.

To be honest I find infinitly more plausible that some creep crept into the apartment and kidnapped Madeleine than that her father hangs out with and maybe is, a paedophile, possibly molesting her and her mother killed and dissolved her.

Nothing I have seen has convinced Kate and Gerry killed or abused their daughter.

Little Acorn

homeOwner wrote: »

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.

It could have been the case I suppose.
I'm pretty sure the shutters were not opened from the outside.
The McCanns at first said that the abductor had broken in through the shutters. They said that the shutters had been jemmied open from the outside.
After both the police and hotel confirmed that were was no evidence whatsoever that the shutters had been tampered with, and were impossible to open from the outside, the McCanns own spokesperson went back on their earlier claims of a break in, he said that the McCanns now accept that there was not a break in. It was then suggested by them that the abductor must have come through the unlocked patio doors.

So this brings the scenario that the abductor came through the open doors, but for some reason decided to leave through a window with a 3 foot drop, carrying an approx 2 stone + child in his arms, and managed to do this without disturbing any of the lichen growing on the windowsill, or leaving any forensic trace whatsover behind him/her. When he/she could have just as easily left through the door.

I don't think an abduction exit took place through that window at all.
Someone earlier in the thread did make a good enough point though about why the window may have been opened.
They suggested that maybe an abductor entered through the patio doors, and opened the shutter and windows from the inside, just incase they had to use them to make a quick escape, if a parent arrived back at the apartment.
I don't know why the McCanns haven't suggested this theory themselves instead of first insisting they were broke into, then being forced because of evidence to go back on that claim, to again on the late late show going back to insisting that the shutters were opened from the outside when it's already been proven that they weren't.
Very confusing why they keep changing the details about those shutters.
It may be because as others have suggested, they believe it takes some of the blame off themselves, by suggesting that someone forcibly broke in and was determined to abduct their child, to the alternative which is that they were careless enough to have left their doors unlocked where anybody could have walked in.

prinz

Little Acorn wrote: »

They suggested that maybe an abductor entered through the patio doors, and opened the shutter and windows from the inside, just incase they had to use them to make a quick escape, if a parent arrived back at the apartment..

There's another possibility, two people. One inside, one outside the window. One inside opens shutters and hands the girl out the window to an accomplice who gets away while one inside calmly leaves by a different exit. Which brings us back to Kate's first words after the girl was noticed missing which IIRC were "They've taken her."

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

There's another possibility, two people. One inside, one outside the window. One inside opens shutters and hands the girl out the window to an accomplice who gets away while one inside calmly leaves by a different exit.

That certainly sounds plausible.

Little Acorn

prinz wrote: »

There's another possibility, two people. One inside, one outside the window. One inside opens shutters and hands the girl out the window to an accomplice who gets away while one inside calmly leaves by a different exit. Which brings us back to Kate's first words after the girl was noticed missing which IIRC were "They've taken her."

That's a good point actually. Why is it that we all, including the McCanns speak about a possible abductor [if there was one],in the singular?
2 or more involved is rarely mentioned.

hondasam

Little Acorn wrote: »

That's a good point actually. Why is it that we all, including the McCanns speak about a possible abductor [if there was one],in the singular?
2 or more involved is rarely mentioned.

because the friend of the mccanns said she seen a man carrying a child.

I think the UK and Portuguese police have looked at every possibility. I Don't think people on here are going to solve it.

prinz

Little Acorn wrote: »

That's a good point actually. Why is it that we all, including the McCanns speak about a possible abductor [if there was one],in the singular? 2 or more involved is rarely mentioned.

Except by Kate in her first words, which by itself is an odd thing for someone to say. Personally if I was looking at multiple people involved I'd be looking at staff members. The death of Michaela McAreavey springs to mind. I'd be interested to know any history of thieving from apartments at the McCann's resort. One possibility is someone (possibly staff) robs the apartments and in doing so hands the stuff out the window to accomplice. Perhaps Madeleine wakes up, makes noise, person decides to hand her out the window too, she ends up dead, possibly accidentally in trying to keep her quiet for example. Accomplice leaves the area.

Sill have questions about McCann's though.

metrovelvet

prinz wrote: »

Except by Kate in her first words, which by itself is an odd thing for someone to say.

Exactly, because we all have her fantasy of what happenned engrained in our heads.

sunflower27

homeOwner wrote: »

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

1. How can the parents possibly know when they were too busy off drinking with friends.

2. Why would an abductor risk climbing out of a window? How obvious would that look :rolleyes:

Kess73

prinz wrote: »

There's another possibility, two people. One inside, one outside the window. One inside opens shutters and hands the girl out the window to an accomplice who gets away while one inside calmly leaves by a different exit. Which brings us back to Kate's first words after the girl was noticed missing which IIRC were "They've taken her."

Totally plausible, although it would still mean that the person who got the child througth the shutters would have to have gone the same route that Jane Tanner said she was on, and would still have had to have gone past where the guy, Jeremy, was standing. The same Jeremy who stopped there chatting to Gerry but never saw Tanner or anyone else there, despite Tanner's timeframe for seeing a man carrying a child in that exact spot clashing with when Jeremy said he was at that spot.

So whether it was one, two, or ten abductors, if Tanner's statement is to be believed, then she somehow missed seeing the man, Jeremy, standing talking to Gerry, and somehow Gerry and Jeremy missed the man walking passed them carrying Madeline and did not see Tanner either.

So if Gerry and Jeremy are correct, and both their statements seem to match up location and timewise, then Tanner's version has to be doubted, plus we had Mathew Oldfield saying he checked the apartment at 21:30, so for him to be at the apartment at 21:30 he would have had to have left the table a few minutes beforehand and should have crossed paths with Tanner if she was over by the apartment seeing a man carrying a child at 21:20.


I think the statements that have Gerrry leaving the table at about 21:00 to 21:05 are true as more than the McCanns and their group noticed it.

I think Gerry stopping to talk to Jeremy in the lane at 21:15 sounds true as again there are more than just Gerry and the table crew to back it timewise.

But Tanner's statement does not make sense as she should have either seen Gerry in the lane with Jeremy or at the very least crossed his path as he came from there. She should have seen Jeremy as he said in his statement he was there and saw nobody bar Gerry McCann who he spoke to there for a number of minutes. She should also have crossed paths with Oldfield imho if he left the table to arrive at the apartment for 21:30.

Yet Tanner seemed to have been able to be in the area for a few minutes around the 21:20 mark, in a spot with only one way in and out, yet she saw nobody bar the person carrying a child. The person she was sure was Murat and white. The person who was then a woman who looked like Murat's girlfriend, and who finally went back to being a dark sinned man with long greasy hair and a long thin moustache.

Tanner for me is the weak link in the story of the checks.


Now it still does not mean the child was not abducted, but it casts doubt on the check storyline in a big way as everyone cannot be telling the truth if they are telling versions that suggest they should have crossed paths but did not.

Little Acorn

hondasam wrote: »

because the friend of the mccanns said she seen a man carrying a child.

I think the UK and Portuguese police have looked at every possibility. I Don't think people on here are going to solve it.

I don't think Jane Tanners sighting holds much strength. It's changed so many times, that it's completely unlikely and unreliable that it is accurate.

I'm sure the police have looked at the multiple abductors possibility, I just think it's interesting that you never really hear that theory been spoken about, and just thought that prinz made a good observation that I'd never heard suggested before.

Of course nobody here is going to solve the case, all people can do is speculate over what could have happened, or discuss and ask questions about aspects of the case they find strange/questions they wished were answered by either the authorities or by the McCanns.

RGDATA!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be honest I find infinitly more plausible that some creep crept into the apartment and kidnapped Madeleine than that her father hangs out with and maybe is, a paedophile, possibly molesting her and her mother killed and dissolved her.

Without commenting on the McCann's either way, and just on a casual reading of your comment, you're presenting a false dichotomy.

I don't think anyone has argued the combined "father a paedophile/mother dissolved her in acid" line, which you are suggesting is ridiculous compared to your theory. Some people have argued the paedophile allegations, a few the acid thing (not particluarly credibly)

Another error i think you're making is you seem to implicitly assume that creeps going round abducting children is vastly more common than parents abusing their children. What is your basis for that? Because I would doubt it to be honest.

Mistyeyes321

Kess73 wrote: »

Yep. Very sad people Gerry, but what does that say for people who accused the wrong man. Said a number of times that the man in question, Murat, was guilty, and did everything they could to pin the blame on that man even before the police had finished questioning that man.


An innocent man had his life in the balance thanks to lies said by the McCanns, and has since had many death threads thanks to the lies said about him.

Yet that man has yet to get any kind of apology, be it a direct one or through a third party, from the McCanns over the lies said about him.


I guess it is ok for Kate McCann to say what she likes about another person's guilt as she sees it, but it is wrong for anyone else to look at the Madeline story and have doubts based on actual logged events and actual police reports.

Sorry Gerry but if it is fine for your wife and yourself to condemn a man for something he did not do and to make sure that knowledge made it to the media through your friends and family, then it sure as hell is fine for people to specualte based on what you and your wife have siad, and on what facts are available.

Another thing Gerry should consider that it is them that say that they want to keep the story alive, so people talking about it in offices, internet forums, on the bus or wherever are doing just that, regardless of whether the people talking or not believe the McCanns stories.

Maybe Gerry would prefer if people stopped talking about the story and just ignored the McCanns and did not buy their book.


Seems that do as I say but not as I do is the McCann philosophy.



As for Cagney nodding along. Maybe that was because he really believes them, in which case that is fine as we are all entitled to our opinion, or maybe he was nodding along to keep them happy as them being on the show means big ratings.

All the Above are Typical Examples of the Mccann Gravy Boat churning the usual Bull & Round & Round we go!

These pair can't even Appologies to their own children for Leaving them in Danger! Not a chance for anyone else is there?!

I'm sorry to keep mentioning this but it really does bug me...Where is the Proof that this Child was seen after Tea Time which I beleive was served in the Day care..."Correct me if i'm wrong"!
I have a Problem with all these Timelines & obviously so do many other's!

Is there any sighting's of this Child after her evening Meal?! Thank You in Advance.

AckwelFoley

Some day Kate will get to meet and interview the abductor of Maddie


Its an interview that could take place in a phone box

sunflower27

I admit I don't know as much about the case as some of you lot, but with regards to sightings, did anyone other than friends of the McCann's actually see a man carrying a child? That is one helluva weird coincidence if that is the case.

mariaf24

Did anyone else disagree with what they have told their 6 year old twins? (They said this on TLLS). They say 'The bad man took Madeleine'...

I don't know about anyone else but i would not have slept a wink between the ages of 6+ if my parents told me 'A bad man' abducted my sister. Talk about traumatising...I was horrified.
This wouldnt be as bad if they know that a man took Madeleine, but as we have gone over and over, there is no evidence to suggest so....

mikom

mariaf24 wrote: »

They say 'The bad man took Madeleine'...

'The dad man took Madeleine'

sunflower27

'They've taken her' is a very odd statement as well. I'd have thought that the first thought would be that Maddie let herself out and went looking for her parents, not that a group of abductors broke in and out of three children decided to take one of them. Weird.

Little Acorn

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

All the Above are Typical Examples of the Mccann Gravy Boat churning the usual Bull & Round & Round we go!

These pair can't even Appologies to their own children for Leaving them in Danger! Not a chance for anyone else is there?!

I'm sorry to keep mentioning this but it really does bug me...Where is the Proof that this Child was seen after Tea Time which I beleive was served in the Day care..."Correct me if i'm wrong"!
I have a Problem with all these Timelines & obviously so do many other's!

Is there any sighting's of this Child after her evening Meal?! Thank You in Advance.

David Payne at his first interview said that the last time that he saw Madeline was at the apartment at 5pm and that Gerry and Kate were both there at the time.
It was proven by the kids clubs records sign out sheet, that Madeline was only collected at 5:30pm from the kids club thing.
David Payne now says that the last time he ever saw Madeline was at 6:30pm, and that Kate was alone with the kids at the time, and that Gerry was playing tennis at the time.
He says Gerry asked him to go and check in on Kate.

AckwelFoley

mikom wrote: »

'The dad & mam took Madeleine'

fyp

Kess73

sunflower27 wrote: »

I admit I don't know as much about the case as some of you lot, but with regards to sightings, did anyone other than friends of the McCann's actually see a man carrying a child? That is one helluva weird coincidence if that is the case.

Nope, nobody bar Jane Tanner saw a white man/woman/dark skinned man carrying a child where she said she saw it.


Plus the man who was where she said she saw a person carrying the child saw neither Tanner nor this person who can change both sex and skin colour and said so in his police statement.

sunflower27

mariaf24 wrote: »

Did anyone else disagree with what they have told their 6 year old twins? (They said this on TLLS). They say 'The bad man took Madeleine'...

I don't know about anyone else but i would not have slept a wink between the ages of 6+ if my parents told me 'A bad man' abducted my sister. Talk about traumatising...I was horrified.
This wouldnt be as bad if they know that a man took Madeleine, but as we have gone over and over, there is no evidence to suggest so....

Agree, I'm not a parent but can't imagine saying that to a child. It's bad enough hearing stories of the boogie man as a kid, but to be told your own sibling was taken by a bad man is really, really awful. Maybe they are trying to convince their kids as well :rolleyes:

Kess73

Little Acorn wrote: »

David Payne at his first interview said that the last time that he saw Madeline was at the apartment at 5pm and that Gerry and Kate were both there at the time.
It was proven by the kids clubs records sign out sheet, that Madeline was only collected at 5:30pm from the kids club thing.
David Payne now says that the last time he ever saw Madeline was at 6:30pm, and that Kate was alone with the kids at the time, and that Gerry was playing tennis at the time.
He says Gerry asked him to go and check in on Kate.

Plus Gerry and Kate have given very different timescales for how long he spoke to Kate. Gerry said that David was talking to Kate for about 30 minutes (think he meant 18:00 to 18:30 despite their tennis court being booked for 18:00), but Kate said that she only spoke to him for about 30 seconds as he passed by the door of the apartment.