Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mistyeyes321

walshb wrote: »

Just a shame they didn't treat her as a daughter, or prized possession, when they were on holiday.

Some Holiday them Babies had stuck in a Day Care everyday & left alone all night...:mad:

walshb

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Some Holiday them Babies had stuck in a Day Care everyday & left alone all night...:mad:

Indeed; and all boils down to one simple thing: Lack of affection!

lugha

prinz wrote: »

..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'.

This is true. But that is not the bit that is implausible. It is the idea that a couple could cause the death of their firstborn. And then proceed to appear perfectly normal until the hatched their concealment plan (which if you believe some, involved the incredibly high risk strategy of involving a number of other people)

prinz wrote: »

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

And what evidence would you expect to find if there had been an abduction? Where is the evidence that those women in Leinster who went missing were abducted? Or likewise for that young girl in Donegal?
Again I say, what the McCanns think happened has only marginally more weight that what any of us else think happened? Though of course they (uniquely!) are in position to know if there was an abduction of some sort. (If they were not involved, ergo it was an abduction)

prinz wrote: »

Why didn't they cooperate fully? Why didn't they answer police questions?

As I recall (I did read much of this stuff when it was released but have forgotten much of it ) these questions were put to Kate when she was a suspect. If her lawyer advised her not to answer questions then I don’t think you can infer anything from her silence (indeed I think a judge would caution against you doing exactly that if you were on a jury). You say she was impeding the investigation. She might have quite reasonably believed that she was preventing herself for being wrongly convicted for murdering her child (this does happen;Lindy Chamberlain, Sally Clark)

prinz wrote: »

Why the obstruction and the discrepancies?

The question of discrepancies has been raised a number of times now. The implication seems to be that an innocent witness would relate exactly the same sequence of events every time. Not so. In fact I can recall one example (I think it was the case of the teenage couple in Italy who killed the girl’s mother and brother) where investigators suspicions were aroused precisely because they did give exactly the same version of events everytime.
It is not enough to say: there are discrepancies. You need to point out what exactly they stood to gain, in terms of concealing their involvement, by changing their story.

NTMK wrote: »

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

I think this hints at why so many people are so vehemently lined up against the McCanns. They weren’t done for neglect, so everyone looks to pin a manslaughter charge on them.

metrovelvet

^ The Portugese Police want to pin an accidental death on them, where the death was an accident and they hid the body.

I know it sounds nuts, but it would not shock me if GM did something like this with his wife knowing nothing about it. Not saying its likely, just saying it would not shock me.

And yeah, I know that sounds nuts, thats why if I had to wager, I'd wager on the no one did checks on them and that gave an abductor plenty of time to take the child.

seanbmc

"Got kicked out of Eason's today for moving Katie McCann's new book back to the Murder Mystery section."

heidi_ho

metrovelvet wrote: »

^I know it sounds nuts, but it would not shock me if GM did something like this with his wife knowing nothing about it. Not saying its likely, just saying it would not shock me.

I said that a whileen back and I still think it could be something too. Maybe its Kate pushing all the media exposure not knowing what he done and he cant tell her to cool it off....

Little Acorn

OutlawPete wrote: »

One of the dogs was and one wasn't. The one that picks up scent of human blood, can do that even if it is years old, but I wouldn't just dismiss it of course, just don't think that is as key to the story as it would seem. Wasn't there a scent picked up at the bottom of the steps also, suggesting a fall?



Yes, but he didn't fly all over the world and give as many interviews as they have done. I just don't accept that they could or would be this active if they had anything to do with the death or disappearance. I still believe that the only person that seems like a liar to me, is Jane Tanner, what she says does not add up whatsoever. Not been seen by Gerry and the other man, seeing a man carrying a child but not saying anything about it until the disappearance, being more descriptive months later than she was on that night, saying the man was notably over dressed for the weather, but the the girl was notably under dressed for the weather, plus the fact that she is the only person who appears shifty to me whenever I have seen her on camera.

If she did lie about seeing a man carrying a child, why would she do that? What is she trying to divert attention away from? Could it be to give the impression, that what was to happen in the next fifteen minutes, had already occurred? Then at 10:05pm, when she is told that Maddie is missing, she blurts out, for the first time:"OMG, I seen a man carrying a child".

Hi OutlawPete,
Just a few more things about the dogs, I posted this earlier in the thread about where the dogs searched:

2 beaches including the cliffs as far as the dog could "negotiate the incline" - no alert from any dog at either beach.
. 4 surrounding areas [5 if you include a dirt road that was searched] of the apartment. These surrounding area searches took about 2 hours -no alert from either dog in any of these areas.
. Robert Murat's house and his garden -no alert from either dog.
. All the apartments of the remaining group of friends. -No alert in any of these apartments.

The only places there was alerts was :
. In various places inside the McCann's 5a apartment -both Blood and Cadaver alerts
. The veranda outside Kate and Gerry's bedroom. - Cadaver alert
. The garden area directly under Kate & Gerry's veranda.- Cadaver alert
. Madeline's soft toy in the McCann's new accommodation- Cadaver dog alert
. The McCann's rented car- Cadaver alert [10 other cars were searched by the dogs with no reaction, and the trainer was not told which was the McCann's car, so did not unintentionally "lead" the dogs to a reaction at their car.]
. On the clothing marked "living Room" belonging to the McCann's. -cadaver dog alert. [The whole area was screened by the dogs first for 10 minutes, before the clothes were brought in. This was to make sure there were no other scents or false alerts in the area that the dogs might be responding to. They had no reaction in those 10 mins, they only reacted when the McCann clothing was put down]

This is a link to where the information came from, the trainer's statements and the police statements about the dog's findings.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmccannexposure.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2F12%2Fmccann-sniffer-dogs-videos-and-evidences-a-timely-reminder%2F&ei=vl_MTcfbHMSwhAfE79DsBQ&usg=AFQjCNHbhajG4vy4dbZC2xFjcmvRa1fj2Q

The trainer does say that the findings are cadaver "scent"cannot be used as absolute proof of anything without corroborating evidence like an actual body.
However when I read that out of all the many places the dogs checked, and the screening they did to prevent false positives etc., it just seems so weird that the only place that the dogs give any positive alerts is in and around the McCanns residence, on their clothing, AND in their vehicle.
One place you could maybe dismiss, but thats positive alerts in 3 separate places, all linked to the McCanns.
I did have another question on that older post of mine, it was something from the link about Russell O' Brien, in relation to a request of a search and seize of his vehicle, but I haven't heard more about it since.

In saying that, I also don't think it's possible that they could have hidden a body in the timelines that they have provided.
I did say however though, that if it was ever shown that their Tapas story is false that it really would blow open the case again, and any scenario could be possible. The group have already been proven to have changed and differed on a lot of their stories already.
I can see where you are coming from about them not being able to keep up an act for so long, I'm not sure how I feel about that aspect myself, but people have pointed out in this thread that big pretences like these are possible.
I haven't said anything about how they come across in interviews, because I am not picking up on the things that others have noticed, like them coming across as cold people.
I find them pretty hard to read tbh. I guess if I had to explain what I see, I would describe Kate as dejected looking, like she has either given up/has no belief in this campaign thing, whereas Gerry comes across as much stronger and determined to keep this whole thing going.
I think they both look like they have aged a huge amount in the last few years, I can see stress etched on their faces around their eyes.
I also believe that despite their idiotic and selfish parenting plan whilst on holidays, that they do love their children very much. They tried for a baby for years, and got IVF before Madeline was born. I don't think they would have ever intentionally harmed her.

I also think Jane Tanner's sighting is pretty worthless to the investigation.
Her descriptions are almost laughable they are that ridiculous.

I find it hard to decide what theory I'm most convinced about in this case. Like in my earlier posts I have tried to weigh up the possibilities of both the abduction theory, and the theory that something big is been hidden by the group. There is more suspicious aspects in the case, than there is suggestions of an abduction, but I'll still keep an open mind.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't be hugely surprised either way, if it was proven that an abductor took Madeline, or if the McCanns or some of the group are somehow involved. Both are possible, it's just that there is more circumstantial evidence to support that the group/mccanns might be hiding something.
What that something could be I cannot say for certain, it could turn out to be nothing and that the McCanns are hiding nothing, but with all the weird things about this case,and when the police files are read etc, I think it's to be expected that people will have suspicions and/or questions they want answered.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

And what evidence would you expect to find if there had been an abduction? Where is the evidence that those women in Leinster who went missing were abducted? Or likewise for that young girl in Donegal?

Evidence of someone going in and out of their apartment, which according to themselves was less than a minute away from where they sat in a crowded tapas bar. There's no sign of forced entry, no evidence that someone left via the window as Kate claimed. No evidence besides Gerry McCann that the shutter could easily and quickly be opened from the outside. This wasn't an abduction in a car where the actual crime scene is missing (as suspected in the cases you mention). They had the crime scene in Portugal. Nothing disturbed, no evidence left. Nobody credible sees or hears anything..

lugha wrote: »

As I recall (I did read much of this stuff when it was released but have forgotten much of it ) these questions were put to Kate when she was a suspect. If her lawyer advised her not to answer questions then I don’t think you can infer anything from her silence (indeed I think a judge would caution against you doing exactly that if you were on a jury). You say she was impeding the investigation. She might have quite reasonably believed that she was preventing herself for being wrongly convicted for murdering her child (this does happen;Lindy Chamberlain, Sally Clark)...

Even if she was a suspect what of it? How could she incriminate herself if she had nothing to hide? What did she have to fear about discussing photos of their wardrobes from the crime scene? If it was me I would cooperate, any detail could help the investigation. It wouldn't matter if I was one of a number of suspects or not. The last thing I would do is sit in stony silence while the people who are trying to figure out what happened try to piece it together.

lugha wrote: »

The question of discrepancies has been raised a number of times now. The implication seems to be that an innocent witness would relate exactly the same sequence of events every time. Not so...

Except it's not just discrepancies. I wouldn't expect 9 people to have everything agreeing to the minute either, but the basics yes, like was someone with you for 30 seconds or 30 minutes. Also the question of phone logs being deleted off phones etc. Rather odd don't you think that in the first days after your daughters abduction you would choose to tidy up your received calls/dialled numbers logs. Why would the others not return for the physical reconstruction at the scene? Why refuse to cooperate? Why did other people come forward with concerns about members of the group?

lugha wrote: »

It is not enough to say: there are discrepancies. You need to point out what exactly they stood to gain, in terms of concealing their involvement, by changing their story....

Their reputations. Livelihoods. The remnants of their family?

lugha wrote: »

I think this hints at why so many people are so vehemently lined up against the McCanns. They weren’t done for neglect, so everyone looks to pin a manslaughter charge on them.

People want the truth, not to pin anything on anyone. I'll say it again, perhaps it was an abduction but some random mystery person not yet known, but even if it was massive questions remain about all of the things I mentioned above.

thebullkf

OutlawPete wrote: »

There is no way that the McCanns had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. No couple could lie this good and for so long, they would have given themselves away by do, even if just though body language. If they know Madeleine is dead, then they would not be as active as they are. They would just disappear into the background.

why, because they couldn't keep up the pretence..

I have watched all their interviews over the years and I know enough about Body Language from books and documentaries that I have seen, to know that they are not lying when they speak of Madeleine. I think they may have used Calpol and the like, as Gerry has shown signs of lying when he discusses this, but other than that, they are telling the truth.

columbo indeed.

Also, I don't believe that Madeleine could have walked out, why would the shutters be up if that is what she did. Okay, someone could have grabbed her and then went back in, only to then escape through the window, but doubtful if the 'checks' are to be believed.

so you doubt they did there checks but.....

To me, the key questions have NOTHING to do with Gerry and Kate.

how does that marry^^

What sticks out to me is why Jane Tanner was not seen by Gerry and Wilkins. Two men chatting don't see a woman they know walking on the same street? Bizarre to say the least and then that woman sees a man carrying a kidnapped child, one who is not kicking up a fuss at being snatched from her bed by a strange man? Also bizarre but I guess possible if someone was used to knock Maddie out (or was she given Calpol by the McCanns, also possible but how would the 'bad man' know this?).

its not only jane tanners testimony that has more holes than a tinkers sock

My own feelings is that someone became aware that Madeleine was being left alone and waited for them to go out for the night. Went into the apartment and knocked Maddie out with something (if she didn't already need it) heard Gerry return and hid. Gerry comes in and checks kids, closes door over and heads back to Tapas. Guy goes out Window in case he meets one of the other parents checking on their kids.

no marks inside or outside the window...no evidence of anybody except the mccanns in the apartment.... despite hiding, and carrying a 2 stone child out a small window

I wouldn't put much weight on what the dogs sniffed out, it's rented accommodation after all and they might have just sniffed out traces of cocaine or something?

so lemme get this straight, you've watched every interview the mccanns have done, and are basing your assumptions on info you've garnered from books and documentaries, dismissed evidence that police thought worthwhile, disregarded the fact the police do not believe in the abduction theory yet comfortable to insist that

There is no way that the McCanns had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance

really?.. have you read this thread? methinks not. maybe you should;)

I'd pay more attention to that book at Tapas that said that the parents were leaving their kids alone in the apartment. Maybe the owner or the chef with the limp.

OutlawColumbo.

maybe you should pay more attention to the facts of the case as opposed to the "mother" who neglected her children whilst on holiday;)

no offence buddy, but the guts of your post above is horseshit

cocaine:eek:






*are you taking the pi$$?*

thebullkf

Elliemental wrote: »

Their own gain? Chances are they just want to "gain" the return of their daughter. However, if you want to believe the conspiracy theories and pass moral judgement on parents, who cannot even grieve properly, then fair enough. And ofcourse they'll do anything it takes to keep this matter in the public eye. That child was their daughter! Most parents would strive to do the same.

i'd use that term loosely tbh.

thebullkf

seanbmc wrote: »

"Got kicked out of Eason's today for moving Katie McCann's new book back to the Murder Mystery section."

is this moronic post supposed to be funny???


shame you're not kicked outta here.:rolleyes:

lugha

prinz wrote: »

Evidence of someone going in and out of their apartment, which according to themselves was less than a minute away from where they sat in a crowded tapas bar. There's no sign of forced entry, no evidence that someone left via the window as Kate claimed. No evidence besides Gerry McCann that the shutter could easily and quickly be opened from the outside. This wasn't an abduction in a car where the actual crime scene is missing (as suspected in the cases you mention). They had the crime scene in Portugal. Nothing disturbed, no evidence left. Nobody credible sees or hears anything..

The door might have been left unlocked, or possibly opened by a collaborating staff member, and the kid walked out, or was removed. No evidence would need to have been left.

prinz wrote: »

Even if she was a suspect what of it? How could she incriminate herself if she had nothing to hide?

Plainly it is possible. Otherwise why are the accused, almost universally afforded the right to silence? Contrary to popular assertion, it is to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

prinz wrote: »

I'll say it again, perhaps it was an abduction but some random mystery person not yet known, but even if it was massive questions remain about all of the things I mentioned above.

But the logic used by many here seems to be: there are many strange aspects to this story that we don't understand. Therefore the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter! Talk about adding 2 and 2 and getting 187!

thebullkf

lugha wrote: »

The door might have been left unlocked, or possibly opened by a collaborating staff member, and the kid walked out, or was removed. No evidence would need to have been left.

Plainly it is possible. Otherwise why are the accused, almost universally afforded the right to silence? Contrary to popular assertion, it is to protect the innocent, not the guilty.


But the logic used by many here seems to be: there are many strange aspects to this story that we don't understand. Therefore the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter! Talk about adding 2 and 2 and getting 187!

ironically enough, 187 is the Police radio call code in the states for a Homicide..

prinz

lugha wrote: »

The door might have been left unlocked, or possibly opened by a collaborating staff member, and the kid walked out, or was removed. No evidence would need to have been left.

If you go back a few pages you might find my post where I went through that as a possible theory. I even mentioned Michaela McAreavey as a possible scenario, of a staff member possibly stealing from the room to pass goods onto accomplice. Child wakes up, they silence her.

The issue starts when the McCanns insist their version is what happened that someone in the room, left by the window with Maddie. No evidence of that.

lugha wrote: »

Plainly it is possible. Otherwise why are the accused, almost universally afforded the right to silence? Contrary to popular assertion, it is to protect the innocent, not the guilty..

Great well I hope Kate can enjoy how protected she is. The funny thing is anytime I've heard her speak she said she would do anything to get Maddie back. Anything except the off chance of possibly implicating herself in something, even though she is innocent.

lugha wrote: »

But the logic used by many here seems to be: there are many strange aspects to this story that we don't understand. Therefore the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter! Talk about adding 2 and 2 and getting 187!

The McCanns and group were involved in something. Perhaps not the death of their daughter, but like I and others have said, they have done and said many things to raise suspicions. So why should they be exempt from suspicion? Statistics would say they are the most likely people involved even in the case of an accident. However people are supposed to ignore all that in favour of the unsubstantiated claim of the very people most likely to be involved?

They might very well be innocent of anything relating to Maddie's disappearance, but personally there are too many discrepancies, too much evidence against the group as a whole etc to turn around and decide that their innocent.

dark crystal

prinz wrote: »

Evidence of someone going in and out of their apartment, which according to themselves was less than a minute away from where they sat in a crowded tapas bar. There's no sign of forced entry, no evidence that someone left via the window as Kate claimed. No evidence besides Gerry McCann that the shutter could easily and quickly be opened from the outside. This wasn't an abduction in a car where the actual crime scene is missing (as suspected in the cases you mention). They had the crime scene in Portugal. Nothing disturbed, no evidence left. Nobody credible sees or hears anything..


.

The thing is, there's no evidence because the crime scene was contaminated almost straight away. The police did not seal off the scene and the apartment was full of staff, civillians and police as well as the McCanns. If there was evidence of an abductor, it could well have been lost because of the amount of traffic through the apartment that night.

In fact, the apartment was rented out to four different families before forensic officers attempted to take blood and DNA samples from the room.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042924/McCann-apartment-rented-times-police-forensic-testing.html

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

If you go back a few pages you might find my post where I went through that as a possible theory. I even mentioned Michaela McAreavey as a possible scenario, of a staff member possibly stealing from the room to pass goods onto accomplice. Child wakes up, they silence her.

The issue starts when the McCanns insist their version is what happened that someone in the room, left by the window with Maddie. No evidence of that.

No evidence for Kate and Gerry killing accidently or otherwise either to be fair.

Great well I hope Kate can enjoy how protected she is. The funny thing is anytime I've heard her speak she said she would do anything to get Maddie back. Anything except the off chance of possibly implicating herself in something, even though she is innocent.

Why would she want to implicate herself in something she probably hasn't done?

The McCanns and group were involved in something. Perhaps not the death of their daughter, but like I and others have said, they have done and said many things to raise suspicions. So why should they be exempt from suspicion? Statistics would say they are the most likely people involved even in the case of an accident. However people are supposed to ignore all that in favour of the unsubstantiated claim of the very people most likely to be involved?

They might very well be innocent of anything relating to Maddie's disappearance, but personally there are too many discrepancies, too much evidence against the group as a whole etc to turn around and decide that their innocent.

Explanations have been offered time and again for the many discrepencies in the case but you and others are simply refusing to acknowledge them. What is worse you then accuse those of us who go with the abduction scenario of doing the exact same with the 'evidence' you give.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No evidence for Kate and Gerry killing accidently or otherwise either to be fair.

That's debateable as plenty of people have already provided links to articles on the case. No conclusive evidence yes, but a lot of circumstantial evidence that they are not being totally above board with everyone.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why would she want to implicate herself in something she probably hasn't done?

If she hadn't done it and told the truth why would she implicate herself?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Explanations have been offered time and again for the many discrepencies in the case but you and others are simply refusing to acknowledge them.

Sorry I can accept explanations for differences in the exact time of the night etc. That's natural. What's different though is discrepances in who was where, one person saying they looked in the door, another saying that person stayed for 30 minutes to an hour IIRC. That doesn't add up and there's no explanation for that.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What is worse you then accuse those of us who go with the abduction scenario of doing the exact same with the 'evidence' you give.

The thing is though, there is no evidence of an abduction. None. So you are 'going with the abduction scenario' solely based on what the McCanns and their friends say. On the other hand you are dismissing a hell of a lot of evidence.

dark crystal

prinz wrote: »

The thing is though, there is no evidence of an abduction. None. So you are 'going with the abduction scenario' solely based on what the McCanns and their friends say. On the other hand you are dismissing a hell of a lot of evidence.

What evidence do you think would be left in an apartment where all and sundry were allowed to roam free that night?

If the abductor/s had been stupid enough not to wear gloves, or wipe their prints off the door handle, do you think there would be any evidence of their existence left after the police failed to seal off the room? Even senior Portugese detectives were shocked by the complete lack of protocol when it came to sealing off the room for forensic evidence...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491940/Police-looked-Madeleine-crime-scene-trampled-circus-people.html

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

That's debateable as plenty of people have already provided links to articles on the case. No conclusive evidence yes, but a lot of circumstantial evidence that they are not being totally above board with everyone.

Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive proof of anything though, yet the majority on AH at least seem to take it as such.

If she hadn't done it and told the truth why would she implicate herself?

Because we all know that would never be good enough for her detractors. No matter what she says, she'll end up implicating herself because people will twist her words or read things into them that are not there.

The thing is though, there is no evidence of an abduction. None. So you are 'going with the abduction scenario' solely based on what the McCanns and their friends say. On the other hand you are dismissing a hell of a lot of evidence.

I just don't find the evidence for the McCanns being child killers all that convincing because there is a lot of self righteousness and absolute bile directed at Kate and Gerry going along with it.

I might be more willing to listen if the evidence was presented without the judgmental attitudes or self righteousness tbh.

metrovelvet

There is no evidence of an abduction because the evidence has been sabotaged. That doesnt mean it didnt happen or that whomever did it wasnt very skilled at getting rid of evidence.

The rest of the evidence is highly interpretable.

ppink

dark crystal wrote: »

What evidence do you think would be left in an apartment where all and sundry were allowed to roam free that night?

you know for educated people I really do not understand 2 MAIN things they did
1) to leave their kids alone
2) to contaminate the room after they determined an abduction

I mean it is just so crazy! who on earth does not think about that in the case of an abduction!.
i had an incident in my home with a product failing and causing substantial flooding.......first thing I did was take out my camera. In my wellies in my kitchen taking pics of the damage before I tried to rescue anything.

What they did is just beyond my comprehension.

Little Acorn

dark crystal wrote: »

What evidence do you think would be left in an apartment where all and sundry were allowed to roam free that night?

If the abductor/s had been stupid enough not to wear gloves, or wipe their prints off the door handle, do you think there would be any evidence of their existence left after the police failed to seal off the room? Even senior Portugese detectives were shocked by the complete lack of protocol when it came to sealing off the room for forensic evidence...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491940/Police-looked-Madeleine-crime-scene-trampled-circus-people.html

I see your point, and it is a good one, but that article is unfair towards the Portuguese Police. They were there in just 12 minutes from when they received their call, but because of when the call was made by the hotel, almost an hour had already passed since Madeline was discovered missing.
So even though they had a very quick response time, by the the time they got there the place had already been trampled over by the McCanns friends and others. They did seal the place off, it's just that it was too late at that stage.

maebee

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/05/10/madeleine-mccann%E2%80%99s-parents-the-real-royal-couple/comment-page-3/#comment-53225

Derek says:
May 16, 2011 at 3:47 am
Well, I have 36 years of experience as a UK police officer to drawn upon. Ignoring the “Team McCann” publicity machine, which is backed up by top lawyers, and which is adept at manipulating the media is difficult for those with no such experience. It is easy to be taken in!

I have several observations to make. I have interviewed countless thousands of people, both as witnesses and suspects, many of whom have been under great stress.

Many of these who began as suspects were subsequently found to be blameless as a result of my investigations. I have NEVER come across an innocent person who sat through an entire interview and refused to answer a series of 48 questions. I was interested to learn that Kate McCann (according to her own book) was chanting “F..king t..ser” (meaning the interviewing officer) through much of the interview. This was a man who was trying to locate her allegedly abducted daughter!

Is this the behaviour of person who has nothing to hide, I ask myself.

Distracting oneself by various means is a common means of avoiding direct involvement in an interview, and minimises the chance of inadvertently coming out with some statement which could be of evidential value.

The McCanns, both being Doctors, have at least some basic forensic awareness. Look at their actions (allowing and indeed encouraging all and sundry to contaminate the scene in the flat, washing the childs soft toy immediately etc) in that light.

Comment has been made elsewhere, especially in the UK media, on how strong a marriage the McCanns have. My opinion..two persons who have let’s say a shared involvement in a series of actions, which could end in total disaster for them if they were ever to come to light have no option other than to stay together. It is a case of “United we stand, divided we fall”. For ever.

It is ironic that the original investigation by the Portuguese was effectively stopped by the McCanns following pressure by our government and media once they became suspects, yet they have now used the same pressure and media to have the Metropolitan Police re-examine the case. I can only wonder at the rationale behind this, and I do not envy whichever UK officers are saddled with this task. Is this an attempt to muddy the waters, or to establish what is in the local police files? Who can say.

At this stage, no new credible witness evidence will be found, and short of the discovery of a body I fail to see how the investigation can progress.

I agree with the conclusions reached by Gonçalo Amaral. Madeline died that evening, the “Find Maddie” circus as generated and maintained by the McCanns is a farce. The customary solemn, distraught demeanour as shown by the McCanns when in the public eye can be contrasted with how they behave when they believe they are unobserved.. a great example of that is available on YouTube, together with revealing examples of their body language when questioned on camera

.

Kess73

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is no evidence of an abduction because the evidence has been sabotaged. That doesnt mean it didnt happen or that whomever did it wasnt very skilled at getting rid of evidence.

The rest of the evidence is highly interpretable.

If things happened within the timeline the McCanns insist it did, then an outside abductor simply did not have the time to rid the apartment of all evidence.

Between when Gerry claimed he was there, and when he was chatting to Jeremy Wilkins after that check, Jane Tanner walking by, and Matthew Oldfield checking, there is barely a few minutes available for the child to have been taken, especially as the McCanns have put a lot of weight in Tanner's claim and the time that was meant to have happened at.

So if it was an outside abductor it was a very fast snatch and run.

Also it must have been an abductor who came back to get rid of fingerprints as the shutters that both Gerrry and Kate claimed to have opened and shut and opened again before the police arrived only had one set of fingerprints on it, despite Gerry claiming he went outside and opened that shutter from the outside after Kate said the child was taken.

Now the McCanns have said that no other timeline bar the one they say is fact is possible, so going by their "facts" an abductor simply did not have the time to clean up and be sure that no evidence was left behind because an abductor had no way of knowing that the McCanns would have literally dozens of people in and around that apartment before the police arrived and asked everyone to leave the room they were all in.

dark crystal

ppink wrote: »

you know for educated people I really do not understand 2 MAIN things they did
1) to leave their kids alone
2) to contaminate the room after they determined an abduction

I mean it is just so crazy! who on earth does not think about that in the case of an abduction!.
i had an incident in my home with a product failing and causing substantial flooding.......first thing I did was take out my camera. In my wellies in my kitchen taking pics of the damage before I tried to rescue anything.

What they did is just beyond my comprehension.

Who knows why people do anything whilst in severe shock?

I suspect if I found my daughter missing, the last thing that would enter my mind would be preserving the scene. I would be out of my mind and would want my friends and family around me. If on holiday, I would definitely want anyone available at the time to help search for her.

All people react differently in these situations, I guess.

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

What evidence do you think would be left in an apartment where all and sundry were allowed to roam free that night?

So someone comes in, without force, kidnaps the girl, goes to leave the same way they entered but decides to open the window and shutters first. For what? To air the place out? Considering what went down only two abductors makes sense as I have said before when I gave my opinion on the other side of the case. One inside the apartment, one outside. Gerry claims the shutters were opened from the outside. Attempts later have shown they can't be without a tool or something to force them open and no evidence of that was found. So unless someone repaired or replaced the shutters...it should still be there.

So if this version is to be believed you need two people. Not unplausible. Personally if I was going to conclude that's what happened I would say you'd need two people to make a clean getaway. One a guest/member of staff/someone pretending to be staff for example with a key.

Another query is Kate's first words.. They've taken her. Who were they? Why not Someone's taken her? Why not Maddie's missing/she's not in her bed/I can't find her? With your first words to get help you already suggest an abduction, not only that but by more than one person.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive proof of anything though, yet the majority on AH at least seem to take it as such..

That's their business, not mine.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because we all know that would never be good enough for her detractors. No matter what she says, she'll end up implicating herself because people will twist her words or read things into them that are not there...

Really? Have you read the questions she refused to answer? Can you think anyway the contents of her own closet could be twisted around to implicate Kate in something?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I just don't find the evidence for the McCanns being child killers all that convincing because there is a lot of self righteousness and absolute bile directed at Kate and Gerry going along with it....

Eh the evidence is a very separate issue with what may be 'going along with it'.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I might be more willing to listen if the evidence was presented without the judgmental attitudes or self righteousness tbh.

Mind boggling. Truly. You cannot decide on what the evidence says based on the attitudes of who presents it. Otherwise court cases would be even more of a case of a personality contest between lawyers.

dark crystal

Kess73 wrote: »

If things happened within the timeline the McCanns insist it did, then an outside abductor simply did not have the time to rid the apartment of all evidence.

Between when Gerry claimed he was there, and when he was chatting to Jeremy Wilkins after that check, Jane Tanner walking by, and Matthew Oldfield checking, there is barely a few minutes available for the child to have been taken, especially as the McCanns have put a lot of weight in Tanner's claim and the time that was meant to have happened at.

So if it was an outside abductor it was a very fast snatch and run.

Also it must have been an abductor who came back to get rid of fingerprints as the shutters that both Gerrry and Kate claimed to have opened and shut and opened again before the police arrived only had one set of fingerprints on it, despite Gerry claiming he went outside and opened that shutter from the outside after Kate said the child was taken.

Now the McCanns have said that no other timeline bar the one they say is fact is possible, so going by their "facts" an abductor simply did not have the time to clean up and be sure that no evidence was left behind because an abductor had no way of knowing that the McCanns would have literally dozens of people in and around that apartment before the police arrived and asked everyone to leave the room they were all in.

Why would you assume any abductor would be stupid enough not to wear gloves, if they were gaining entry to an apartment, knowing this would be the biggest clue to them being caught?

If I was a child abductor or burglar, I wouldn't go leaving my fingerprints anywhere!

Besides, there's no reason to believe they used the windows or shutters at all, seeing as there was an unlocked door for faster and easier entry.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive proof of anything though, yet the majority on AH at least seem to take it as such.



Because we all know that would never be good enough for her detractors. No matter what she says, she'll end up implicating herself because people will twist her words or read things into them that are not there.



I just don't find the evidence for the McCanns being child killers all that convincing because there is a lot of self righteousness and absolute bile directed at Kate and Gerry going along with it.

I might be more willing to listen if the evidence was presented without the judgmental attitudes or self righteousness tbh.

A number of people have listed the facts that were in the police reports, both British and Portugese, which contradicted the McCann/Friends versions and the same people have done so whilst saying that they would be no more surprised if the McCann were found innocent as guilty.

There is certainly not enough evidence to convict the McCanns of doing something to that child, but there is certainly enough evidence to say that some of the statments given by either the McCanns or their friends don't add up.

And there has been actual forensic evidence that contradicts some of what was claimed by the McCanns.

maebee

dark crystal wrote: »

Who knows why people do anything whilst in severe shock?

I suspect if I found my daughter missing, the last thing that would enter my mind would be preserving the scene. I would be out of my mind and would want my friends and family around me. If on holiday, I would definitely want anyone available at the time to help search for her.

All people react differently in these situations, I guess.

Hi dc, Do you not find it strange that the McCanns never searched for their missing daughter and that within a week they were jogging every day, recording their times in Gerry McCann's blog?

Mr.Micro

Kess73 wrote: »

If things happened within the timeline the McCanns insist it did, then an outside abductor simply did not have the time to rid the apartment of all evidence.

Between when Gerry claimed he was there, and when he was chatting to Jeremy Wilkins after that check, Jane Tanner walking by, and Matthew Oldfield checking, there is barely a few minutes available for the child to have been taken, especially as the McCanns have put a lot of weight in Tanner's claim and the time that was meant to have happened at.

So if it was an outside abductor it was a very fast snatch and run.

Also it must have been an abductor who came back to get rid of fingerprints as the shutters that both Gerrry and Kate claimed to have opened and shut and opened again before the police arrived only had one set of fingerprints on it, despite Gerry claiming he went outside and opened that shutter from the outside after Kate said the child was taken.

Now the McCanns have said that no other timeline bar the one they say is fact is possible, so going by their "facts" an abductor simply did not have the time to clean up and be sure that no evidence was left behind because an abductor had no way of knowing that the McCanns would have literally dozens of people in and around that apartment before the police arrived and asked everyone to leave the room they were all in.

Don't forget the abductor had to take time to drug the twin children as well. Their whole story is so full of holes which is why they resisted a re-construction all this time. They did everything to thwart the investigation from the start especially when hard nosed police just did not accept their abduction scenario.