Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

sunflower27

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

Did any of the friends do lie detector tests?

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

Hardly. I doubt very much if any action taken involving Murat was influenced by anything the McCanns did or did not say. And if that was the case, then surely the blame for that should sit squarely with the Portuguese?

But it is amusing to see so many who insist that the McCanns are guilty (despite no court of law having established as much) list as one of their crimes that they were willing to assert that another party was guilty, despite no court of law having established as much. :pac:

Kess73

sunflower27 wrote: »

Did any of the friends do lie detector tests?

The offer of lie detector tests was refused by all. That was a bit of a PR flop as the McCanns went in front of the cameras and said they would take any lie detector tests to prove their innocence, but then when the offer of those tests was put to them, nobody would take one.

Little Acorn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Did any of the friends do lie detector tests?

Not to my knowledge.
I know the McCanns used to always say that they would do one, but then when they were offered a lie detector test they refused. I think they refused because the evidence is inadmissible in Portuguese court.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisislondon.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-23421764-now-kate-mccann-refuses-to-take-a-lie-detector-test-to-clear-her-name.do&ei=O1jRTdeBDYi7hAe16YSGDQ&usg=AFQjCNHRuwUIEgkOCQK4zEc_FqsL9RVrnQ

Mistyeyes321

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.

Thank You. So the Answer is No then?!

I wouldn't trust anything these so Called friends have to say IMHO they're all covering eachother's Back's, Why I don't know & perhap's we never will...So the Mc's Timelines could be way out on just about everything!!

The only Independent witnesses to see this Child at 5:30 Pm was the Day Care staff?!

So from 5:30 there is a five Hour Gap to Maddie being reported Missing? Please correct me if i'm wrong! Because I don't know an awful lot about this Case!!

sunflower27

Kess73 wrote: »

The offer of lie detector tests was refused by all. That was a bit of a PR flop as the McCanns went in front of the cameras and said they would take any lie detector tests to prove their innocence, but then when the offer of those tests was put to them, nobody would take one.

I can't help but think that they are all in on it; that there was an accident and the group devised the abduction story knowing that if the McCanns came clean about the accident then they could be done for neglect.

Possibly the kids were sedated, but if not, an accident regardless.

The washing of the toy was so strange and the fact no-one but one friend saw the 'abductor'.

Refusing to do lie detector tests to clear their names stinks to high heaven as well.

I really don't buy the abductor story, the more I read about it all.

Little Acorn

sunflower27 wrote: »

I can't help but think that they are all in on it; that there was an accident and the group devised the abduction story knowing that if the McCanns came clean about the accident then they could be done for neglect.

Possibly the kids were sedated, but if not, an accident regardless.

The washing of the toy was so strange and the fact no-one but one friend saw the 'abductor'.

Refusing to do lie detector tests to clear their names stinks to high heaven as well.

I really don't buy the abductor story, the more I read about it all.

Martin Smith was an Irish tourist who also claims to have seen a man carrying a child. He is meant to have said that he thinks it may have been Gerry McCann that he saw. I don't know too much detail about his statements, I heard it mentioned a good few times on this thread though.

sunflower27

Little Acorn wrote: »

Martin Smith was an Irish tourist who also claims to have seen a man carrying a child. He is meant to have said that he thinks it may have been Gerry McCann that he saw. I don't know too much detail about his statements, I heard it mentioned a good few times on this thread though.

Cheers, will try and find some info on that.

Mistyeyes321

Little Acorn wrote: »

Martin Smith was an Irish tourist who also claims to have seen a man carrying a child. He is meant to have said that he thinks it may have been Gerry McCann that he saw. I don't know too much detail about his statements, I heard it mentioned a good few times on this thread though.

Not 100% on this but wasn't it all the Smith family who claimed to have seen him? & If i'm not Mistaken I also think one of them made a Comment to the Man Carrying the Child but he didn't asnwer...

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Hardly. I doubt very much if any action taken involving Murat was influenced by anything the McCanns did or did not say. And if that was the case, then surely the blame for that should sit squarely with the Portuguese?

But it is amusing to see so many who insist that the McCanns are guilty (despite no court of law having established as much) list as one of their crimes that they were willing to assert that another party was guilty, despite no court of law having established as much. :pac:

Actually it was proven that Kate said it about Murat plus it was published from her own journal when that journal was taken from her. All this was said whilst Murat was a suspect.

Plus the death threats from members of the public against Murat were verified and he recieved them right up to 2010.

Murat also won compensation from the newspaper that printed what Kate McCann and her family said about him. So it must be very amusing as a court of law ruled that what was said and printed about Murat was false.


A couple of actual published quotes from Kate McCann regarding Murat when he was being questioned.


“Robert Murat continues to be the main suspect”. “For good reason” Three weeks to the day after Murat was made a suspect



“Robert Murat continues to be the main suspect and for good reason, but unfortunately there isn’t strong evidence. Malinka and Michaela are also very much in the scene. I always had a bad premonition, uncomfortable, about Malinka. He is cold” June 5th 2007





“I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat’s situation. I’m sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can’t”. July 18th 2007



“I’m certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream” July 27th 2007







All those quotes are in the police report and also in her journal and also in what she supplied to Metodo 3, the detective agency from Spain.

Also the mother of Kate McCann went to the media with stories of how she had witnesses who said that Murat was seen taking pictures of a small blonde girl who was three years old and the grandaughter of a friend. Then there was the story how he had a glass eye and used it as a party piece by rolling it on tables, which was proven untrue as he has no glass eye .



Maybe you don't see her comments and actions as being capable of causing damage to Murat's name and also being capable of swaying a jury had Murat ended up in court, but she played a very cruel game with that man's life when she targetted him like that.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

I can't help but think that they are all in on it; that there was an accident and the group devised the abduction story knowing that if the McCanns came clean about the accident then they could be done for neglect.

A tad implausible don't you think? Asking your friends to cover up an unlawful death? (pretty unlikely in the first place) And your friends (all!) agreeing ????

Perhaps I have a lower class of friends but I wouldn't think any of them would pull a stroke like that for me! :P

Think Occam's razor! Go for the simplest explanation!

Kess73

sunflower27 wrote: »

I can't help but think that they are all in on it; that there was an accident and the group devised the abduction story knowing that if the McCanns came clean about the accident then they could be done for neglect.

Possibly the kids were sedated, but if not, an accident regardless.

The washing of the toy was so strange and the fact no-one but one friend saw the 'abductor'.

Refusing to do lie detector tests to clear their names stinks to high heaven as well.

I really don't buy the abductor story, the more I read about it all.

As I said earlier, there is another way they could all be in it in terms of telling a lie, and for there still to have been an abductor.

The child could have been abducted by a stranger and the group lied about the checks to make it look like they were checking in on the children all the time and that the children were not simply left for long spells alone.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Maybe you don't see her comments and actions as being capable of causing damage to Murat's name and also being capable of swaying a jury had Murat ended up in court, but she played a very cruel game with that man's life when she targetted him like that.

Perhaps the Portuguese system is different but I would expect exactly the opposite. There have been a few high profile cases here and in GB where someone "mouthing off" in public enabled the suspect to the released on the grounds of not been able to get a fair trial.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

A tad implausible don't you think? Asking your friends to cover up an unlawful death? (pretty unlikely in the first place) And your friends (all!) agreeing ????

Perhaps I have a lower class of friends but I wouldn't think any of them would pull a stroke like that for me! :P

Think Occam's razor! Go for the simplest explanation!

I really don't know, but yes, it is probably as implausible as the parents disposing of their dead child's body - and yet plenty of people seem to think they did.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps the Portuguese system is different but I would expect exactly the opposite. There have been a few high profile cases here and in GB where someone "mouthing off" in public enabled the suspect to the released on the grounds of not been able to get a fair trial.

Yep I agree that it could have the opposite effect in a court to what I said.

But it did cause the death threats to Murat, as he recieved them from people who believed what was said, and it did cause him and his mother to have to hold up inside their home/homes due to there being what the police saw as real threats to their safety from people who thought he took and/or harmed the child.


So his life was affected by what was said, and the police took the threats to his safety in a serious manner.

Plus the fact he won the lawsuit over comments made and printed says the court went with him on it as well.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

I really don't know, but yes, it is probably as implausible as the parents disposing of their dead child's body - and yet plenty of people seem to think they did.

But perhaps not as plausible as the child simply wandering out of the apartment and been snatched opportunistically, or possible by someone who had been observing the family?

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

But perhaps not as plausible as the child simply wandering out of the apartment and been snatched opportunistically, or possible by someone who had been observing the family?

Kate McCann herself has described that theory (one I think is plausible btw), as recently as on the LLS, as an insult to her intelligence and impossible.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Yep I agree that it could have the opposite effect in a court to what I said.

But it did cause the death threats to Murat, as he recieved them from people who believed what was said, and it did cause him and his mother to have to hold up inside their home/homes due to there being what the police saw as real threats to their safety from people who thought he took and/or harmed the child.


So his life was affected by what was said, and the police took the threats to his safety in a serious manner.

Plus the fact he won the lawsuit over comments made and printed says the court went with him on it as well.

I would say that this is a hazard of the legal system, and not unique to this case. I have always thought it improper than a suspect or defendant be named until they are formally charged and sent for trial.

Perhaps there are good legal reasons why this is not done, but I don't see them.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Kate McCann herself has described that theory (one I think is plausible btw), as recently as on the LLS, as an insult to her intelligence and impossible.

Again, we have this idea that the McCanns have some special knowledge about what might have happened. They don't (unless they were involved!) so their theories are only marginally better than yours or mine.

the_monkey

Einhard wrote: »

In the likely event that the McCanns had nothing to do with their child's disappearance, I can't even imagine by how much their grief and pain must have been compounded by accusations of amateur sleuths and conspiracy theorists on the internet, safely ensconced in their own homes whilst casting the most vile slurs against a grieving couple.

Here Here ... OP you don't KNOW what happened, so keep your judgements to yourself.

iamwhoiam

Little Acorn wrote: »

Martin Smith was an Irish tourist who also claims to have seen a man carrying a child. He is meant to have said that he thinks it may have been Gerry McCann that he saw. I don't know too much detail about his statements, I heard it mentioned a good few times on this thread though.

sunflower27 wrote: »

Cheers, will try and find some info on that.

When the Mc Canns went home to the UK and were filmed coming off the plane Gerry was carrying Sean . Martin Smith saw it and was struck by the similarity in the way Gerry was holding Sean and the man they saw that night in P da Luz carrying a child in his arms .
He maintained that he may have seen Gerry that night carrying a child .

_feedback_

the_monkey wrote: »

Here Here ... OP you don't KNOW what happened, so keep your judgements to yourself.

Nobody here knows what happened.

Surely a bit of chat about the various pieces of information is less harmful to anyone than let's say... Announcing that you know who took her and you'd like to kill them, even though you have absolutely no proof.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Again, we have this idea that the McCanns have some special knowledge about what might have happened. They don't (unless they were involved!) so their theories are only marginally better than yours or mine.

Personally I think that dismissing that particular theory was pretty stupid and that her response to it was very arrogant.

For her to say that it was impossible and that it was an insult to her intelligence was like saying she knew for sure that could not have happened.

The only way anyone could know for sure what exactly caused that little girl not to be in that apartment would be if a person was there exactly when whatever happened happened.

If Kate was not in the apartment, then she cannot know for sure it did not happen, and as their friends have said in statements to the police that none of them saw Madeline when they checked on the apartment, the McCanns version of having it down to a few minutes when the child was defo abducted
loses credibility somewhat.

I mean maybe Gerry did not close the patio door properly. It is plausible and they did admit the door was not locked. But from Kate's mouth we hear that the idea of the child wandering off and then being taken is impossible and an insult to her intelligence.

Basically what Kate did with that claim is say that one proposed scenario that proved they had nothing to do with the disappearance ( save for not ensuring the child was left with no adult supervision) is impossible.

They are saying that it had to have happened exactly as they said it happened. The window had to have been used, the timeline had to be when they said it. And they can say all this is certain despite there being no evidence at all to back it and despite the fact they were meant to be sitting at the table some distance away.

A little bit strange to say the least.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

Personally I think that dismissing that particular theory was pretty stupid and that her response to it was very arrogant.

For her to say that it was impossible and that it was an insult to her intelligence was like saying she knew for sure that could not have happened.

The only way anyone could know for sure what exactly caused that little girl not to be in that apartment would be if a person was there exactly when whatever happened happened.

If Kate was not in the apartment, then she cannot know for sure it did not happen, and as their friends have said in statements to the police that none of them saw Madeline when they checked on the apartment, the McCanns version of having it down to a few minutes when the child was defo abducted
loses credibility somewhat.

I mean maybe Gerry did not close the patio door properly. It is plausible and they did admit the door was not locked. But from Kate's mouth we hear that the idea of the child wandering off and then being taken is impossible and an insult to her intelligence.

Basically what Kate did with that claim is say that one proposed scenario that proved they had nothing to do with the disappearance ( save for not ensuring the child was left with no adult supervision) is impossible.

They are saying that it had to have happened exactly as they said it happened. The window had to have been used, the timeline had to be when they said it. And they can say all this is certain despite there being no evidence at all to back it and despite the fact they were meant to be sitting at the table some distance away.

A little bit strange to say the least.

yes , they are very closed to any suggestions that dont match their own . Those steps lead right out on to a busy enough road ,so maybe she doesnt want us thinking she would leave her children in a house where they could wander off .
Also the lady above in the apartment is still insistant that she heard Madeleine crying for over an hour the night before and they were also very dissmissive of that ,. Why ?

K-9

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.

I'm saying it's a possible scenario, paedophile rings do exist.

I don't know why thinking of different scenarios annoys you so much.

K-9

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

The odd thing is the inspector says Payne's wife's statement contradicts those 3 different versions too, so you've 4 different versions of events.

Kate said it was for only 30 seconds, David Payne says 30 minutes, Gerry says he wasn't there, Payne's wife says that all 4 of them including her husband and Gerry were there.

Donkey Oaty

elviscostello wrote: »

Nobody here knows what happened.

This is true, if we are talking about what happened on the night in question.

But one thing that can be said with absolute certainty is this: the McCanns are liars.

That doesn't necessarily make them murderers, child-druggers, bad parents, whatever.

But they are certainly liars.

NTMK

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

That doesn't necessarily make them murderers, child-druggers, bad parents, whatever.

But they are certainly liars.

leaving 3 very young kids on their own while you go out repeatedly is bad parenting

Sierra 117

Kess73 wrote: »

Kate McCann herself has described that theory (one I think is plausible btw), as recently as on the LLS, as an insult to her intelligence and impossible.

That's a good one, coming from the mouth of the woman who left her children alone in a foreign country. Insult to her intelligence indeed.

Donkey Oaty

NTMK wrote: »

leaving 3 very young kids on their own while you go out repeatedly is bad parenting

I'm inclined to agree with you, and I wouldn't advise it myself, but I'm not a parent, and good/bad parenting is a relative thing, which is open to debate.

They are liars, is what I am saying, and that is beyond doubt.