Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week
Options
Comments
-
I dunno if anyone will know the ins and outs of this but something i wondered about the other day is, lets say god forbid it was found out that the McCanns had something to do with her death (not implying they did, just hypothetically- say her body was found and it was proved or whatever)- what exactly would be done with the profits from the book and the Madeleine fund? like would it all lay dormant or could it be transferred to a charity or....?
Possible they could be reclaimed under the Proceeds of Crime Acts in the UK. It would go to the State.0 -
-
-
-
Spanish Eyes wrote: »I believe the Madeleine fund is actually a company, not a charity, so the memorandum and articles of association should contain that information. But I'm not sure. As for the book, well, the profits are going to the Madeleine Fund are they not? Don't know, but would imagine so. If not, there is something not right if the parents benefit from the loss of their daughter.
Intriguing question all the same.
I suppose if it ever was proved and tbh I don't think it will, it would be fraud.
The ex inspector said he said that at a meeting between the English and Portuguese authorities, apparently it didn't go down well!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven't written it. I've just C and P'd it. Madeleine's mother has written it. It makes me feel sick too, that she could write such a thing. Do you not feel sick at the person who wrote it?
Why should the mods delete something which is an extract from the book we are discussing on this thread?
If it makes you feel sick, why do you keep on putting it out there for other people to see? She put it in a book, you keep putting it out on the internet for anybody to see, what if a minor is reading this thread?
Just as an aside, do you not need permission to reproduce text from a copyrighted book?0 -
I suppose if it ever was proved and tbh I don't think it will, it would be fraud.
The ex inspector said he said that at a meeting between the English and Portuguese authorities, apparently it didn't go down well!
I think if it is ever proved, that fraud will be the least of their problems.0 -
hopefully, it'd just be very unfair on everybody who donated if it never ended up helping any children, whether it be Madeleine or not.
Let's not forget Madeleine is a celebrity case, there a countless missing children in the UK, and Portugal and everywhere else. I am sure if any assets were recovered there are plenty of organisations who would look to benefit from that and rightly so.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »What should they have said so? What else could they have told them? How could they explain to two year olds why their big sister was there one moment and gone the next?
Ridiculous that she had to talk about the bad man. Kids of 18months are only interested in where their next chicken nuggets are coming from, and that they are safe and loved.
Those twins will not remember Madeleine much. They have moved on to school, etc. and rightly so. They should not be traumatised by this.
I am disappointed that the parents chose to tell the kids that. They could have said she is gone on her holidays, to the shop, to her auntie in Scotland sure the babies wouldn't care after a while, as long as they are loved. And they would move on. Safe and secure with no horrible memories.
Can you remember what you were doing, or what happened when you were 1 and a half years old. Could you talk about your siblings, i.e. "where is Mary, I haven't seen her for a while" Rubbish. 18month olds are babies. Love and attention, and food is what they are interested in.
This pair are using the kids to accentuate the bogey man. Horrible really.0 -
If it makes you feel sick, why do you keep on putting it out there for other people to see? She put it in a book, you keep putting it out on the internet for anybody to see, what if a minor is reading this thread?
Just as an aside, do you not need permission to reproduce text from a copyrighted book?
I have to agree with this, why repeat it? I really dont want to hear this twice.0 -
Advertisement
-
Let's not forget Madeleine is a celebrity case, there a countless missing children in the UK, and Portugal and everywhere else. I am sure if any assets were recovered there are plenty of organisations who would look to benefit from that and rightly so.
thats why im hoping if it ever emerges that the money was gotten through fraud (or whatever way you'd describe it), that they knew of her whereabouts or were gulity in some way, that it wouldnt be left in their hands, that it'd be given to a charity or organisation that could benefit others. right now im hoping it is benefiting the search for Madeleine in some way. naiive i guess, but i do hope it is being used in her best interests.
Also, Spanish Eyes, how could the McCanns deal with the questions when the kids get older and see things in the papers or are told by their friends about Madeleine? they can hardly keep up the 'shes gone to the shop' act for long?
i do agree with you on the 'bad man' issue but maybe they thought its best not to lie to their kids because it'd come out in the end anyway. (i know we dont know if it was a man but if thats what they believe...)
But their sister is known all over the world, they can never keep the story from the younger kids.0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »Ridiculous that she had to talk about the bad man. Kids of 18months are only interested in where their next chicken nuggets are coming from, and that they are safe and loved.
Those twins will not remember Madeleine much. They have moved on to school, etc. and rightly so. They should not be traumatised by this.
I am disappointed that the parents chose to tell the kids that. They could have said she is gone on her holidays, to the shop, to her auntie in Scotland sure the babies wouldn't care after a while, as long as they are loved. And they would move on. Safe and secure with no horrible memories.
Can you remember what you were doing, or what happened when you were 1 and a half years old. Could you talk about your siblings, i.e. "where is Mary, I haven't seen her for a while" Rubbish. 18month olds are babies. Love and attention, and food is what they are interested in.
This pair are using the kids to accentuate the bogey man. Horrible really.
Their sister has been kidnapped or well missing anyway. They aren't normal children.
You can't just pretend she went to the shop etc. and never came back! :eek:
The bogey man is a stupid term though.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
why write it?it inpowers the pedo,if it ever happened they wayjam_mac_jam wrote: »I have to agree with this, why repeat it? I really dont want to hear this twice.
the mccanns say so?why put it in ink.
i have really big misgivens over thier story.why?
cos they have changed thier story way too many times,
shock can explain some of it.
but 4 years on and near on,week by week the story
is still changing.does not add up,poor maddy
is the only 1 i feel sorry for,plus her sibblings.
and im not sure what happened that day.
but i do think thier was some kinda cover up
by at least one o the mccanns.0 -
Fine that you wanted to post it, but why do you have to post it at least 4 times? It is one of the worst things you have seen written, yet you want to keep writing it again and again and again. It actually makes me feel sick every time I see it, I did report it, haven't gone back over the thread to see if the mods have deleted the other times you've posted it, but I cannot understand why, if its so bad, you keep posting it.
you reported it because you found it offensive, maebee didn't write it , i think its relevant toposters who haven't read it before,thread is extremely long now....0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »I believe the Madeleine fund is actually a company, not a charity, so the memorandum and articles of association should contain that information. But I'm not sure. As for the book, well, the profits are going to the Madeleine Fund are they not? Don't know, but would imagine so. If not, there is something not right if the parents benefit from the loss of their daughter.
Intriguing question all the same.
iirc in 2008 the plc fund got 1.8milllion pounds sterling indonations.
13% was invested in the search for Madeline.0 -
iirc in 2008 the plc fund got 1.8milllion pounds sterling indonations.
13% was invested in the search for Madeline.
it is not difficult to define though?
like obviously paying their mortgage is not directly investing in the search for her but things like trips abroad to highlight the case- not exactly directly investing in the search- but it is for Madeleine. i could be wrong though. figures can sometimes be misleading.0 -
one thing ive been wondering about.
they said they left the apartment unlocked so that if madeleine woke up again like she did before, she could come out and join them if she wanted. and also in case of a fire.
now ignoring that this would be crazy with a SWIMMING pool between them and the apartment....
they also claimed in some interviews that there were child locks on the doors to stop the kids getting out.
so which is true?!
i understand youd get muddled over things but its like.... not making an iota of sense to me.
good point heidi_ho - if we ever get to the truth it could turn out kate didnt know WHAT happened
the more this thread goes on the more i really wish we knew what happened to the poor kid. i just saw a few friends post an aged photo of madeleine on facebook (she loooks 6 or 7)
These people are both stupid and arrogant.
They changed their story because they dont actually know whether they locked the door or not. They had a bottle of wine together before they even went to dinner. My feeling is they didnt even care enough to think about fires or something happenning. Even I know and Im not a doctor or firewoman or cop, that young children in a fire will most likely hide in a closet or under a bed, they may not have the sense to know how to exit. If they did, we wouldnt have fire drills in school. They are stupid and they are doctors who are stupid. Leaving the doors open doesnt do much to guarantee the safety of toddlers in a fire if there is one.
They are arrogant. They think they can do anything they like and nothing bad will happen to them or those around them. So they leave children unattended. GM is still carrying around that hubris.
Inconsitencies in an 11 hour interrogation is understandable. Acting weird in the middle of shock is also understandable. Grief and panic does weird things to people.
What is not understandable to me, is the sniffer dog's evidence. This is where I am confused. When a body dies, it starts to give off a chemical, the name of which I forget. The sniffer dogs are trained to recognise the scent of this chemical. I cannot remember how long the body has to be dead before the chemical is emitted. It was found in a couple of places in the apartment and on a number of items, including KM's clothes. KM dismissed it as claiming she had been on contact with a few corpses in her work before the holiday. I dont buy that. I dont buy it because it is my understanding that when doctors come into contact with corpses they have to wear overcoverings onto their clothes. And let's say she didnt for whatever reason, she brought dirty work clothes with her on her holiday to Portugal and the scent remained on them for that length of time? AFAIK the McCanns requested the sniffer dogs and they were imported from England, and then they dismiss what the dogs find. How weird. It just gets weirder and weirder.
As regards their funds. They have a lot of legal fees to pay off and a number of libel suits as well.0 -
it is not difficult to define though?
like obviously paying their mortgage is not directly investing in the search for her but things like trips abroad to highlight the case- not exactly directly investing in the search- but it is for Madeleine. i could be wrong though. figures can sometimes be misleading.
i agree,but marketing was massive (obviously) they have PR guys on retainer, 567,000 on wages iirc.....whos wages...???
publicly from what i've seen, they could do more than they're doing, the night she disappearedis one big ball of discrepencies.0 -
i agree,but marketing was massive (obviously) they have PR guys on retainer, 567,000 on wages iirc.....whos wages...???
publicly from what i've seen, they could do more than they're doing, the night she disappearedis one big ball of discrepencies.
Well Im glad Scotland Yard is getting involved once and for all because I think they have been living in a lot of denial. So far their publicity has done nothing to find Madeleine. She is still missing and no one knows what happenned to her.0 -
Ok, so the circumstances of Madeleines disappearance are controversial - starting from when the couples decided between them to do a baby listening service among themselves, albeit intermittently - That sets the tone....
To be honest, I don't know how anybody could know what happened, they may have 'doubts' but I kinda squirm at some of the vitriol towards them too - I think they were wrong bigtime to leave their children alone in the first place, but guilty of murder between them doesn't make that much sense either - what's the motive? They're home free in England now, and people wouldn't be investigating if they weren't constantly keeping their daughter in the public eye - makes no sense they murdered her, accidently or otherwise.
The one and only thing that makes me fidget about the McCanns is that they thought initially that it was fine to leave the kids alone out of sight in the first place. The 'evidence' of the sniffer dogs is worrying, but had the police acted sooner, dogs may not have been necessary, and had the police scene not been contaminated and trampled all over that would have been even better still..
The whole thing from start to finish is full of questions and queries. I remember thinking to myself, 'Wtf did she run back to the table and leave the twins 'alone' and sleeping if she knew that Madeleine had been taken by somebody? Would she not be afraid that in the meantime her other little ones could be whipped off and she just disturbed an intruder'.........and then I thought, just maybe she did - disturb an intruder, and that's the reason why they are still with her....' She would have been like a crazy woman, I know I would.
The only gripe, for now, I can really say I have with the McCanns and their friends on the holiday, is that they took such huge risks in the first place, that led to this tragedy. Also, they are not very convincing in the media when they say it was 'wrong' of them to take that risk as a group - whether that it's a normal kind of behaviour for some people and it would upset them, or because they have been advised not to get involved in that particular debate or be too remorseful for it by some media savy people I don't know.
They seem to think that this particular behaviour is 'understandable' - I don't 'understand' that bit at all..
As for the evidence for or against, well it won't bring Madeleine back, and she could still be out there...
After that, it's down to Scotland Yard and maybe they might co-operate
with the Portugeuse and pick up any sniff of a trail...
I hope Madeleine is still alive and kicking out there somewhere. It's possible, it's been known to happen before.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm quite surprised by some member's actually thinking Mrs M, Is somekind of weak women. I don't see her like this at all infact quite the opposite!
I can see why some would see Gerry as a Strong Minded person. But I really think underneath his outer Shell is very Different from from what he feel's inside!
I have no reason for thinking any of this it's just something in my Gut that just won't go away...I really don't trust a word any of the Pair have to say regarding anything!
Them Pesky dog's just won't leave my Mind...It's just like an Itch you can't scratch.!
Someone said earlier in this Thread that it's not unsual for someone who has committed a Crime to Court the Media just Like the Caretaker from the Holly & Jessica case!
I also beileve the MCS Have Thrown many a spanner into the works of the Police in Portugal...It's not what you know but rather whom you know I think the saying is!0 -
You have plenty of stuff about their parenting style, the first they had to walk a fair bit to the restaurant (reports they had to carry the kids, other reports they had a buggy), it was too far, they booked into the Tapa's for the week.
Continuosly left the kids in the kids club from 9/10 to 12.30, back at 2.30, collected at 5.30.
Noted in the restaurant notes that so disgusted Kate that they had to check the children, the apartment wasn't as clearly visible as originally made out, they have contradicted themselves on this.
Eye witness reports of crying in the apartment for up to an hour and a half on a night previously.
2 different versions of checks on Madeline's book.
Differing versions of checks from hourly to half hourly to quarter hourly to nearly every 5/10 minutes on the night. It seems the checks were not that regular but decreased and decreased on the night!
To me, the one thing that is uncontested, we had a very guilty Tapa's 9 and McCann's over their care and checks of the 3 children.
The window, the patio door unlocked etc.
Now, some of that could be excused or discounted, but all of it?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »What is not understandable to me, is the sniffer dog's evidence. This is where I am confused. When a body dies, it starts to give off a chemical, the name of which I forget. .
2 hours - sometimes 1 and a half hours. depends on the conditions.
i cant explain away that stuff either. people point out that sniffer dogs findings have to be backed up by evidence in court. which is why some dont consider them reliable. BUT, the point of sniffer dogs is to alert you to evidence. its up to the forensics or police etc to take it from there. and, in 200 cases those dogs were never wrong. so its hard to overlook that.
ive been trying to find out if kate had a specialty - one that'd explain the cadaver smell theory. but i cant find anything. that doesnt mean it isnt out there.
when you google you get a lot of weird stuff which probably mostly mulch.0 -
I watched the documentary last night based on the book by the Portugese Police Chief (I can't recall his name at the moment). It said that there was no way the shutters on the window could be opened from the outside, unless something like a screwdriver was used, which would have left marks.
But on the LLS, didn't KM say she left the window closed and it was open when she came back? So the window would have to have been opened from the inside? She thinks the 'abductor' escaped through the window, and left not a single shred of evidence?
I don't know, I really just don't understand it. I've got no idea what actually happened, but I find it hard to believe anything the McCanns say.0 -
She started out as an anesthesiologist and then switched to GP.0
-
I watched the documentary last night based on the book by the Portugese Police Chief (I can't recall his name at the moment). It said that there was no way the shutters on the window could be opened from the outside, unless something like a screwdriver was used, which would have left marks.
But on the LLS, didn't KM say she left the window closed and it was open when she came back? So the window would have to have been opened from the inside? She thinks the 'abductor' escaped through the window, and left not a single shred of evidence?
I don't know, I really just don't understand it. I've got no idea what actually happened, but I find it hard to believe anything the McCanns say.
if we are to believe the Tapas 9 story and the abduction theory could Madeleine have been passed through the window to someone waiting outside?? if done very carefully no evidence would be left.
this actually does look to be possible.
if you look at the picture of the supposed abductor-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490257/Madeleine-witness-I-wish-Id-seen-abductors-face.html
the position of Madeleines head (on his left hand side) doesnt match up with where her head would have been in her bed. (at end of page)-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/06/madeleine-mccann-spotted-in-holland-three-days-after-she-was-kidnapped-115875-20685848/
if she was lying in the correct position in her bed and the abductor came in and picked her up from the right hand side of the bed (the left was up against wall) then her head would have been on the right hand side of his body. unless he either switched her round at some stage or she was passed to him by someone else.
if it was a quick exit by one abductor i dont see why he would swap her around in his hands before walking down the road. so maybe someone passed her through the windows to this man that was claimed to be seen carrying her????0 -
Ok, so the circumstances of Madeleines disappearance are controversial - starting from when the couples decided between them to do a baby listening service among themselves, albeit intermittently - That sets the tone....
To be honest, I don't know how anybody could know what happened, they may have 'doubts' but I kinda squirm at some of the vitriol towards them too - I think they were wrong bigtime to leave their children alone in the first place, but guilty of murder between them doesn't make that much sense either - what's the motive? They're home free in England now, and people wouldn't be investigating if they weren't constantly keeping their daughter in the public eye - makes no sense they murdered her, accidently or otherwise.
The one and only thing that makes me fidget about the McCanns is that they thought initially that it was fine to leave the kids alone out of sight in the first place. The 'evidence' of the sniffer dogs is worrying, but had the police acted sooner, dogs may not have been necessary, and had the police scene not been contaminated and trampled all over that would have been even better still..
The whole thing from start to finish is full of questions and queries. I remember thinking to myself, 'Wtf did she run back to the table and leave the twins 'alone' and sleeping if she knew that Madeleine had been taken by somebody? Would she not be afraid that in the meantime her other little ones could be whipped off and she just disturbed an intruder'.........and then I thought, just maybe she did - disturb an intruder, and that's the reason why they are still with her....' She would have been like a crazy woman, I know I would.
The only gripe, for now, I can really say I have with the McCanns and their friends on the holiday, is that they took such huge risks in the first place, that led to this tragedy. Also, they are not very convincing in the media when they say it was 'wrong' of them to take that risk as a group - whether that it's a normal kind of behaviour for some people and it would upset them, or because they have been advised not to get involved in that particular debate or be too remorseful for it by some media savy people I don't know.
They seem to think that this particular behaviour is 'understandable' - I don't 'understand' that bit at all..
As for the evidence for or against, well it won't bring Madeleine back, and she could still be out there...
After that, it's down to Scotland Yard and maybe they might co-operate
with the Portugeuse and pick up any sniff of a trail...
I hope Madeleine is still alive and kicking out there somewhere. It's possible, it's been known to happen before.
The thing with the police scene is it took the resort staff 30-40 minutes to ring the police, the local unit didn't arrive until 11. Gerry doesn't contest this. The problem they have is the resort staff didn't call quickly enough.
That isn't the police fault. The scene was ruined at that stage anyway. It would have took time to question everybody and ascertain the events.
The PJ were rang about 11.50, makes sense to me.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
if we are to believe the Tapas 9 story and the abduction theory could Madeleine have been passed through the window to someone waiting outside?? if done very carefully no evidence would be left.
this actually does look to be possible.
if you look at the picture of the supposed abductor-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490257/Madeleine-witness-I-wish-Id-seen-abductors-face.html
the position of Madeleines head (on his left hand side) doesnt match up with where her head would have been in her bed. (at end of page)-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/06/madeleine-mccann-spotted-in-holland-three-days-after-she-was-kidnapped-115875-20685848/
if she was lying in the correct position in her bed and the abductor came in and picked her up from the right hand side of the bed (the left was up against wall) then her head would have been on the right hand side of his body. unless he either switched her round at some stage or she was passed to him by someone else.
if it was a quick exit by one abductor i dont see why he would swap her around in his hands before walking down the road. so maybe someone passed her through the windows to this man that was claimed to be seen carrying her????
The inspector did ask that. It's possible, think the link provided earlier explains why they discounted it, but it could have happened.
Unfortunatelty Jane Tanner's evidence changed and I don't think it is credible. If it is, well the Irish couples is and then it was Gerry McCann who carried Maddie away! :eek:Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
The inspector did ask that. It's possible, think the link provided earlier explains why they discounted it, but it could have happened.
Unfortunatelty Jane Tanner's evidence changed and I don't think it is credible. If it is, well the Irish couples is and then it was Gerry McCann who carried Maddie away! :eek:
and there was me thinking i was on to something with my own detective work! :P ah well..0 -
Advertisement
-
The inspector did ask that. It's possible, think the link provided earlier explains why they discounted it, but it could have happened.
Unfortunatelty Jane Tanner's evidence changed and I don't think it is credible. If it is, well the Irish couples is and then it was Gerry McCann who carried Maddie away! :eek:
Why is her testimony doubtful?
I find it very weird that you would see a man carrying a sleeping child in the middle of the street in pajamas at night and not comment to anyone about it. Especially knowing that a bunch of your kids are left alone in apartments, but then again I find pretty much everything about these people bizarre. Nothing makes any sense about them. Its like Im looking at aliens from another planet. I dont recognise human behaviour, theirs does not compute.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement