Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

Changed it a couple of times apparently plus timelines as Kess73 outlined. It's too unpredictable and unreliable, same as the Irish couples.

To sum it up, the evidence is too suggestible, same as the Irish couple's and gerry who saw Gerry carrying one of the twins of the airport, coming back from Portugal and went Eureka!

Elisabeth Blanctorche

Just watching this for the first time now on the late late show repeat, tubridy is asking the tough questions but the mccanns are like politicians at this stage with their answering abilities.

Hank Scorpio

Anyone have a link to the RTE interview? Cant find it online anywhere

Elisabeth Blanctorche

www.rte.ie/player the late late episode is online they are the last guests

Hank Scorpio

Just watched the LLS interview there.

I really can't believe a word the Mcanns say.

The points about the general case, sniffer dogs, inconsistencies about the times they were "checking the children", the parents fighting beforehand, people seeing someone carrying a child in there arms at that time of night when their own children were in those apartments and not alerting someone/finding it strange. Kate Mcann washing the childs toy, refusing to answer all those questions to the police.

Also what makes me wonder is the point of all the money there "Charity" have recieved, im sure they have huge libel fees still to say off.

About the interview itself, Gerry Mcann comes across as a very eery individual. When KM was talking about him leaving there party in a huff, for no particular reason, she brushed it off as nothing. She said she went home 5 minutes later and found him asleep snoring. Something about this doesnt add up to me. She/they constantly repeated during the interview "we never row, we never row" If thats the case why were they fighting on a foreign holiday with friends of all places?

Another thing about him is when he was finished talking after answering a question, his leg would kind of pop up into the air. This to me looks like a feeling of tension being released, or someone like a musician whos just rattled off a verse they have prepared strongly before hand. He seems to be the confident one, answering many questions aimed at KM, she looks really nervy. Maybe shes going along with him all along?

I dont think it was a case of murder, it doesnt make any sence, why would they do it in Portugal of all places where it would draw a huge media spot light. My own theory is Gerry Mcann is an abusive drunk, he got out of control after drinking and accidentally killed Madeline, perhaps in the middle of a fight with KM.

They're both doctors, they're not dumb people. It can't be impossible they managed to get rid of the body. In the interview listen to the part about the childs toy, it seemed to cause slight panic between the two of them.

The only thing that leaves a doubt in my mind is how would they have hidden her body, or where.

Just to edit, I think the theory of MM walking out and being picked up is a believable one too.

sam34

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. 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?well.

she wouldn't necessarily wear any sort of overalls when near a corpse, eg if as a gp she was called to an elderly persons house to pronounce them dead she wouldn't be expected to don anything extra. so, because pronouncing someone dead involves touching and examining them, she could in theory have some cadaver traces on her clothes, depending how long after death she was present.

but who brings their unwashed work clothes on holiday with them??

lugha

nuxxx wrote: »

I think the theory of MM walking out and being picked up is a believable one too.

Do you not think that this is slightly more believable than the idea that a couple who may have killed their own daughter, would have the foresight and the composure to play out a ruse, as they would have to have done?

Why are so many people opting for the most implausible of explanations over the simpler ones? Some seem to take it as a "truth" that the McCanns were directly involved, and any explanation that does not incorporate this won't be considered. The thinking seems to be that because there are some curiosities and inconsistencies in the story (and much of what is being cited at this, is not), the only logical conclusion is that the McCanns are child killers?

I sincerely hope I never have some of the folks siting on a jury when I'm in the dock! ("Did you notice he stratched his butt with his left hand? So, he is sinister! Judge we have a verdict!" :pac:) I suspect some of your hearts would sink a little if Madeleine was ever found alive, as it would mean the McCanns did not kill her.

NTMK

lugha wrote: »

Do you not think that this is slightly more believable than the idea that a couple who may have killed their own daughter, would have the foresight and the composure to play out a ruse, as they would have to have done?

Why are so many people opting for the most implausible of explanations over the simpler ones? Some seem to take it as a "truth" that the McCanns were directly involved, and any explanation that does not incorporate this won't be considered. The thinking seems to be that because there are some curiosities and inconsistencies in the story (and much of what is being cited at this, is not), the only logical conclusion is that the McCanns are child killers?

I sincerely hope I never have some of the folks siting on a jury when I'm in the dock! ("Did you notice he stratched his butt with his left hand? So, he is sinister! Judge we have a verdict!" :pac:) I suspect some of your hearts would sink a little if Madeleine was ever found alive, as it would mean the McCanns did not kill her.

I hope she is found alive but most people here believe that the mccanns didnt kill her but there was an acident and criminal neglect of the magnatude is a long term prison offence. people have been inprisioned with less evidence than what the mccanns have against them but the way they used the media to reveal evidence meant any case against themwould be thrown out. the fact that there is zero evidence of an abductor and the mcanns refusal to cooperate with police in anyway during the investigation along with the witnessis changing their stories when the suspect was ruled out

they should be locked up for neglect at the very least because it is a givenfact the they would rather be going out than taking care of their 3 young kids

ISDW

sam34 wrote: »

but who brings their unwashed work clothes on holiday with them??

I don't think that the clothes have to be unwashed to retain the smell. One of the sniffer dogs detected something on the cuddy toy and that had been washed.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

Do you not think that this is slightly more believable than the idea that a couple who may have killed their own daughter, would have the foresight and the composure to play out a ruse, as they would have to have done?Why are so many people opting for the most implausible of explanations over the simpler ones?

..because it's not at all implausible whatsoever. Far more children die through murder or accident, or are sold, at the hands of parents and family than are whisked away by the mysterious nighttime 'bad man'. Given the reaction of the McCann's post-disappearance it makes some level of involvment by them (or other members of the group) entirely plausible. If your child was missing would you go into a police interview and refuse to answer questions? I know I wouldn't, I'd want to help every last bit I could. Why would I choose to deliberately stymie the investigation? Then of course you have the mountain of inconsistencies in actions, in testimonies, smoke and mirrors, finger pointing, third party evidence etc. Even if the McCann's and co had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance there is still a large amount of questions that they should be more forthcoming about. They deliberately choose not to for whatever reason.

lugha wrote: »

Some seem to take it as a "truth" that the McCanns were directly involved, and any explanation that does not incorporate this won't be considered. The thinking seems to be that because there are some curiosities and inconsistencies in the story (and much of what is being cited at this, is not), the only logical conclusion is that the McCanns are child killers?

The only logical conclusion is that there is more to them and their story than like our eyes to meet.

lugha wrote: »

I sincerely hope I never have some of the folks siting on a jury when I'm in the dock! ("Did you notice he stratched his butt with his left hand? So, he is sinister! Judge we have a verdict!" :pac:)

Body language, words and actions have a massive part to play.

lugha wrote: »

I suspect some of your hearts would sink a little if Madeleine was ever found alive, as it would mean the McCanns did not kill her.

It's possible. Maybe she will be, but whether she is or isn't doesn't change the fact that the McCanns have been exactly 100% forthcoming which would strike me as odd for parents of a missing child.

walshb

Not a fan of Tubridy at all; think he is quite weak. But, he did do a fairly decent interview with the McCann's. He planened it well and asked the relevant questions I felt.

The big problem in this case was simply a lack of real affection for those children. To leave them alone like that speaks volumes.

maebee

ISDW wrote: »

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?

What if a minor is reading the book?

Donkey Oaty

Elisabeth Blanctorche wrote: »

www.rte.ie/player the late late episode is online they are the last guests

Tubbs did a lot better than I thought he would.

walshb

I think it's extremely unlikely that the parents killed this girl. Extremely. It points to abduction. There were many families with them, they would have needed some help surely, and others to keep quiet.

prinz

walshb wrote: »

I think it's extremely unlikely that the parents killed this girl. Extremely. It points to abduction. There were many families with them, they would have needed some help surely, and others to keep quiet.

To be fair very little actually points to abduction, besides what the McCann's themselves say.

ISDW

maebee wrote: »

What if a minor is reading the book?

Somebody would actually have to buy the book to read it. They could be scrolling this thread and find it.

You seem to have a fascination for that particular line. As I have said a few times now, its not the fact that you posted it, but that you keep on posting it.

You're so concerned with these children, yet you don't care if a child sees it on here. I'm sure you wouldn't let your child(ren) read the book, but yet you don't give other parents the same respect, they might not let their children read the book, but they can see that line time and again on here. I believe it was you that posted that even The Sun have changed that line to appear in their paper, yet you see nothing wrong with publishing it time and again. Someone with lower moral standards than The Sun, impressive.

maebee

ISDW wrote: »

Somebody would actually have to buy the book to read it. They could be scrolling this thread and find it.

You seem to have a fascination for that particular line. As I have said a few times now, its not the fact that you posted it, but that you keep on posting it.

You're so concerned with these children, yet you don't care if a child sees it on here. I'm sure you wouldn't let your child(ren) read the book, but yet you don't give other parents the same respect, they might not let their children read the book, but they can see that line time and again on here. I believe it was you that posted that even The Sun have changed that line to appear in their paper, yet you see nothing wrong with publishing it time and again. Someone with lower moral standards than The Sun, impressive.

It's unlikely that minors would be scrolling this thread and see it here. Far more likely they would see it in their parent's copy of the book. KM said she hoped that Madeleine would one day be able to read the book and that is why I cannot understand her use of such a graphic description of Madeleine's body parts. Imo, it is Kate McCann who has the low moral standards. She shows a huge lack of respect for her daughter. I also don't understand why she didn't wish Madeleine a happy birthday on TLLS or leave a message to her or an appeal to the abductor. There is still a reward (of 2.2.m, I think) and that is never mentioned.

thebullkf

ISDW wrote: »

Somebody would actually have to buy the book to read it. They could be scrolling this thread and find it.

so if the book was free....or a family member bought it.?

You seem to have a fascination for that particular line. As I have said a few times now, its not the fact that you posted it, but that you keep on posting it.

the thread is extremely long.

You're so concerned with these children, yet you don't care if a child sees it on here. I'm sure you wouldn't let your child(ren) read the book, but yet you don't give other parents the same respect,

do you let your child read AH???

AH is not for kids, the clue is in the title...

you know thisd, yet persist in berating someone over a line in a book ffs, give it a rest, you've made your point, you've reported it, the mods are ok with it.
still unhappy, you've attempted to get it removed by asking about copyright :rolleyes:

they might not let their children read the book, but they can see that line time and again on here. I believe it was you that posted that even The Sun have changed that line to appear in their paper, yet you see nothing wrong with publishing it time and again. Someone with lower moral standards than The Sun, impressive.

then you have the fcukin neck to post the above, cheezis ISDW whats your problem with Maebee, it can't be just the line she quoted,

tbh to liken someones moral standards to that Rag is disgraceful, and frankly pathetic.

*shakes head*

AudreyHepburn

lugha wrote: »

Do you not think that this is slightly more believable than the idea that a couple who may have killed their own daughter, would have the foresight and the composure to play out a ruse, as they would have to have done?

Why are so many people opting for the most implausible of explanations over the simpler ones? Some seem to take it as a "truth" that the McCanns were directly involved, and any explanation that does not incorporate this won't be considered. The thinking seems to be that because there are some curiosities and inconsistencies in the story (and much of what is being cited at this, is not), the only logical conclusion is that the McCanns are child killers?

I sincerely hope I never have some of the folks siting on a jury when I'm in the dock! ("Did you notice he stratched his butt with his left hand? So, he is sinister! Judge we have a verdict!" :pac:) I suspect some of your hearts would sink a little if Madeleine was ever found alive, as it would mean the McCanns did not kill her.

For some reason I fail to understand people have it in for the McCanns and somewhow believe they are qualified to judge them as parents, a couple, potential killers etc etc.

The only reason I think of is that the abduction theory/idea is just to neat and plausible for most people and leaves them no reason to tear into the McCanns.

NTMK wrote: »

I hope she is found alive but most people here believe that the mccanns didnt kill her but there was an acident and criminal neglect of the magnatude is a long term prison offence. people have been inprisioned with less evidence than what the mccanns have against them but the way they used the media to reveal evidence meant any case against themwould be thrown out. the fact that there is zero evidence of an abductor and the mcanns refusal to cooperate with police in anyway during the investigation along with the witnessis changing their stories when the suspect was ruled out

they should be locked up for neglect at the very least because it is a givenfact the they would rather be going out than taking care of their 3 young kids

1.) I think you'll find that in fact most people DO think they killed her, despite there not being any evidence to suggest such a scenario.

2.) I don't think anyone has actually said that leaving three small children alone is right. All we have repeatedly said is it not a reason to assume that Kate and Gerry played a part in her disappearence or that they killed her.

3.)As they are not guilty of anything, at least legally, there is no reason to lock them up.

OTE]

prinz wrote: »

To be fair very little actually points to abduction, besides what the McCann's themselves say.

To be equally fair there is no more evidence for the McCanns having killed Madeleine. or Gerry associating with paedophiles, or Kate disolving Maddie in acid, or Gerry being a violent drunk or any of the other wacky theories being spouted here.

ISDW wrote: »

Somebody would actually have to buy the book to read it. They could be scrolling this thread and find it.

You seem to have a fascination for that particular line. As I have said a few times now, its not the fact that you posted it, but that you keep on posting it.

You're so concerned with these children, yet you don't care if a child sees it on here. I'm sure you wouldn't let your child(ren) read the book, but yet you don't give other parents the same respect, they might not let their children read the book, but they can see that line time and again on here. I believe it was you that posted that even The Sun have changed that line to appear in their paper, yet you see nothing wrong with publishing it time and again. Someone with lower moral standards than The Sun, impressive.

Clearly it's one standard for the McCanns and another for everyone else. They are not allowed to make mistakes it seems :rolleyes:

maebee

There are very many disrepancies in the book, when taken in comparison to the Rogatory statements given to the PJ by the Tapas 9.
This thread is well worth a read, imo.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic13624.html

walshb

prinz wrote: »

To be fair very little actually points to abduction, besides what the McCann's themselves say.

The very fact that they were leaving the children alone points to abduction.
It was a bloody magnet. They were advertising this for anyone to see and know.

With ALL that has went on, all the hype and media exposure, I just find it very very unlikely that they themselves killed and disposed of their daughter. And STILL they are pushing and hoping and keping it alive.

It's not that easy to dispose of a body, to cover up, hope others cover up, cover your tracks etc.

My gut feeling is that the child is very close to the area where she was last seen. I believe she is dead and that she was more than likely killed not long after she was taken. Buried somewhere. Possibly cut up and buried in different locations. I know, sounds terrible, but that's what I think happened.

thebullkf

walshb wrote: »

The very fact that they were leaving the children alone points to abduction.
It was a bloody magnet. They were advertising this for anyone to see and know.

With ALL that has went on, all the hype and media exposure, I just find it very very unlikely that they themselves killed and disposed of their daughter. And STILL they are pushing and hoping and keping it alive.

It's not that easy to dispose of a body, to cover up, hope others cover up, cover your tracks etc.

My gut feeling is that the child is very close to the area where she was last seen. I believe she is dead and that she was more than likely killed not long after she was taken. Buried somewhere. Possibly cut up and buried in different locations. I know, sounds terrible, but that's what I think happened.

i , like others don't know what happened, but if as you say, they have nothing to do with it, why the discrepencies, why not answer the police questions, why not take the lie detector?
As someone lese pointed out even if you failed it(extremely unlikely considering one is innocent) its not admissable in court.

Why hire PR guru's within 4 days of the 'abduction'

why do the police not believe it was an abduction.

why not chase any and every lead in the hope against hope, that something might come of it.

I'd give all i had, and more if it helped in any way, i certainly wouldn't leave the country she disappeared in within what was it?..2 weeks????

Something stinks with this whole situation, there also seems to be conflicting reports of what is actually fact, and what is speculation.

Based on the facts:

Police do not believe she was abducted.

Police dogs...

Major discrepencies in timelines, and changing of main persons testimony ie the McCanns.

This points to involvement of at least kate and Gerry in some way, does it not?

Also for certain posters to suggest that cointributors to this thread would be unhappy if the McCanns were proven innocent is garbage.

I would like to think that i echo everyones sentiments here in that all we're interested in is the whereabouts of that poor child, and the perpetrators of the crime against her, be it abduction,murder et al, be brought to justice.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with the bit in bold above

NTMK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

3.)As they are not guilty of anything, at least legally, there is no reason to lock them up.

Neglect IS against the law and they're certainly guilty of that

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The only reason I think of is that the abduction theory/idea is just to neat and plausible for most people and leaves them no reason to tear into the McCanns..

How is the abduction theory "too neat and plausible" when by your own later admission there is just as much evidence that she was killed, perhaps inadvertantly. As for 'tearing into the McCanns'...... the people who can put an end to all the speculation are the McCanns. Why don't they? Why didn't they cooperate fully? Why didn't they answer police questions? Why doesn't their story add up? Let's not fool ourselves that the McCann's have been 100% forthcoming or above board.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be equally fair there is no more evidence for the McCanns having killed Madeleine..

So you'll just run with the statistically much more unlikely version.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

..or Gerry associating with paedophiles..

Apart from the doctor couple who came forward at the time who had accompanied the McCanns and pals on a previous holiday and had witnessed what they considered inappropriate sexual references to children, including Madeleine, in a conversation between Gerry and another man. So much so that the lady in question demanded her husband not leave their child alone when Gerry's friend was about.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

...or Kate disolving Maddie in acid, or Gerry being a violent drunk or any of the other wacky theories being spouted here.

You are quite right on those counts. Then again any more wacky than the 'bad man' abductor who vanished into thin air and left no evidence whatsoever?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Clearly it's one standard for the McCanns and another for everyone else. They are not allowed to make mistakes it seems :rolleyes:

By making mistakes you mean wilfully hampering the investigation? Making offers re lie detectors etc and then later refusing. Refusing to cooperate with the reconstruction? Writing off their mistakes with 'hindsight is perfect' while harping on about what the resort staff did/didn't do?

iamwhoiam

The least credible witness of them all is Jane Tanner .She allegedly saw a man carrying a sleeping child , in pink pyjamas with a pattern on them , little cold feet sticking out . There were a total of nine children left alone in apartments and it never struck her to be concerned ?
Absolute BS , it was dark , she couldnt see colours let alone patterns and her story simply does not ring true .
There are numerous little small things like that , phones, times , rows, cuddle cat , smells , dogs , story changes , and all gatherd together are quite a lump of niggles .
And so people are unsure , I know I am .

mydearwatson

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. 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.

I'm pretty much on-the-fence about the McCanns involvement in the whole thing. Their actions were, at best, dangerously negligent, and if I were to find out that they were involved in the murder I wouldn't exactly be shocked.

However the sniffer dog evidence makes no sense to me. It was found, among other places, in the rental car that the McCanns only started using a couple of weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. It's very hard to believe that they managed to hide the body for a few weeks, and then, under the media spotlight, pick up the body and transfer it to an even "better" hiding place!

And she wouldn't have had to bring dirty work clothes on holidays - it's been emphasised that the cavadar smell stays on items (e.g. "cuddle cat") even after they've been washed. It seems pretty believable to me that she was in contact with corpses through work just before the holiday (something that could have very easily been disproven if untrue.) She mightn't have even brought the "work" clothes out to Portugal herself; a relative might have brought them to her in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Kate wore them, and so the smell got into the apartment, the rental car, and the toy she was carrying around with her.

This scenario seems more likely to me, particularly as a corpse won't start to emit that smell until a couple of hours after death and, no matter which of the scenarios put forward are true, if Madeleine died in the apartment it's unlikely her body remained there very long.

Kess73

mydearwatson wrote: »

I'm pretty much on-the-fence about the McCanns involvement in the whole thing. Their actions were, at best, dangerously negligent, and if I were to find out that they were involved in the murder I wouldn't exactly be shocked.

However the sniffer dog evidence makes no sense to me. It was found, among other places, in the rental car that the McCanns only started using a couple of weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. It's very hard to believe that they managed to hide the body for a few weeks, and then, under the media spotlight, pick up the body and transfer it to an even "better" hiding place!

And she wouldn't have had to bring dirty work clothes on holidays - it's been emphasised that the cavadar smell stays on items (e.g. "cuddle cat") even after they've been washed. It seems pretty believable to me that she was in contact with corpses through work just before the holiday (something that could have very easily been disproven if untrue.) She mightn't have even brought the "work" clothes out to Portugal herself; a relative might have brought them to her in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Kate wore them, and so the smell got into the apartment, the rental car, and the toy she was carrying around with her.

This scenario seems more likely to me, particularly as a corpse won't start to emit that smell until a couple of hours after death and, no matter which of the scenarios put forward are true, if Madeleine died in the apartment it's unlikely her body remained there very long.

Very reasonable and very plausible.

But, and it could be a big but, the part of the car that got the biggest reaction from the dog was in the compartment under the carpet of the car boot. Not really a place where clothes or anything would be placed.


And in the apartment only one spot caused the dogs to react as well. And that was one spot behind the couch.

The theory both the British and Portugese police suggested was that the child may have climbed on the couch in order to look out the window and fell and banged her head.

The suggestion that was put about after the dog highlighted the bit under the carpet in the car boot (the same odd place where DNA was found) was that it may not have been a body in that compartment but something that had been wrapped around a body, like a blanket.

Now that is just what the police forces from two countries think might have happened and could be totally wrong, but it does had some bit of doubt to what the McCanns said had to have happened, as the McCanns are stating things as facts for that night despite them saying they were not in the room when whatever happened happened, whereas the police, both British and Portugese, are just working off of what little evidence they could actually find.

I think that if the news broke in the morning that an abductor was caught and was the person to blame, that I would not be surprised, but if the news broke in the morning that the McCanns had been caught on something that proved they had been responsible I would not be surprised either.

There is defo an element of doubt thanks to so many conflicting stories and from how the evidence available does not stack up to statements given.

metrovelvet

mydearwatson wrote: »

I'm pretty much on-the-fence about the McCanns involvement in the whole thing. Their actions were, at best, dangerously negligent, and if I were to find out that they were involved in the murder I wouldn't exactly be shocked.

However the sniffer dog evidence makes no sense to me. It was found, among other places, in the rental car that the McCanns only started using a couple of weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. It's very hard to believe that they managed to hide the body for a few weeks, and then, under the media spotlight, pick up the body and transfer it to an even "better" hiding place!

And she wouldn't have had to bring dirty work clothes on holidays - it's been emphasised that the cavadar smell stays on items (e.g. "cuddle cat") even after they've been washed. It seems pretty believable to me that she was in contact with corpses through work just before the holiday (something that could have very easily been disproven if untrue.) She mightn't have even brought the "work" clothes out to Portugal herself; a relative might have brought them to her in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Kate wore them, and so the smell got into the apartment, the rental car, and the toy she was carrying around with her.

This scenario seems more likely to me, particularly as a corpse won't start to emit that smell until a couple of hours after death and, no matter which of the scenarios put forward are true, if Madeleine died in the apartment it's unlikely her body remained there very long.

My feeling is that no one checked on her at all during the night, and someone did take her and had ample time to do it. The window is a distracting red herring and they used the porch doors.

It could be a pedo ring. It could be an underground adoption ring. It could be somebody who just felt like it.

heidi_ho

maebee wrote: »

There are very many disrepancies in the book, when taken in comparison to the Rogatory statements given to the PJ by the Tapas 9.
This thread is well worth a read, imo.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic13624.html

Hi. just reading that thread and must say utterly shocked :eek:
very interesting too

in particular by the letter of request from the PJ. The dogs... i never knew they found dead body scent in the bedroom of the McCanns in a corner beside the wardrobe... the cots had been moved and one had been in the parents bedroom? what is Madeline fell out of a cot trying tol find her parents and had terrible head injury...

In relation to the blood in the car you would have thought that they could've asked the rental company about what the mileage was when it leased out first and then compared and it would give them idea about the distance a body could be? (if there was one, i don't know)

Poor Madeline on the 1st May she cried for 1hr and 15mins.... really saddened by this..

I dont believe like Mark Cagney said on TV3 yesterday that the PJ had made a total hash of the investigation.. as far as i could read they made a decision to make suspects of the McCann parents on good grounds... no smoke without fire an all

walshb

metrovelvet wrote: »

My feeling is that no one checked on her at all during the night, and someone did take her and had ample time to do it. The window is a distracting red herring and they used the porch doors.

It could be a pedo ring. It could be an underground adoption ring. It could be somebody who just felt like it.

Absolutely. Add in the fact that they were leaving the children alone on several occasions. This was like a red flag to a bull.

Serioulsy, I don't think the parents could be going on and on and on like this IF they really did kill her. It doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, it's just not true. The whole planet was looking for Madeleine. I just do not believe that the parents killed her and then did all they did after it.

They made a very poor call and have paid the ultimate price. They neglected their children and it led to one child being taken. They're damn lucky the three
of them weren't taken.