Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

iamwhoiam

People in Praia da Luz closed their shops and businesses that evening and the next day , British ,Irish and Portugese , to search for Madeleine . It must have been frustrating for them to see the Mc Canns out jogging within a week . I know I would be .

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

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.

The inspector did say they checked for signs of gloves IIRC. Didn'r say what the tests are but I presume they can check for fibres, that type of thing.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

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?

It's certainly not how I would react, but I wouldn't judge their guilt or innocence based merely on such actions.

Like I said before, people react differently in a crisis. I gather the McCanns are quite sporty people and perhaps this was a release for them, rather than just sitting in one place, thinking the worst.

But I do agree with you, i would have been out searching too, had it been me.

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

The inspector did say they checked for signs of gloves IIRC. Didn'r say what the tests are but I presume they can check for fibres, that type of thing.

Yes, but how long after the fact? Would leather gloves leave such fibres, I wonder...

Again, I am somewhat dubious about claims that they entered or exited through the shutters anyway, as it would have been a pointlessly more difficult way for them to have entered or left the room, especially seeing as the door was unlocked.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

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.

The McCanns have claimed that the window and shutter was used. They are adament that happened and have laughed off suggestions that said otherwise.

So if one thing that they claim happened for sure did not happen, who is to say that a lot of their other "facts" are also wrong?

Kate McCann said both the window and shutter were closed when she left and that when she came back but were unlocked and wide open.

Gerry said, and he repeated this on the LLS, he came and closed , then opened the shutter again after Kate said Madeline was missing as he was testing to see if the shutter could be opened from the outside (strange thing to be doing if you have just been told your child is missing), yet his finger prints could not be found on the shutter he had handled, only Kate's were on it.

Plus they claimed that the shutters had been forced.

The police checked the shutters and windows. There were no signs that it was forced. They found that it could not be opened from the outside by hand alone despite Gerry claiming he was able to do so, and that it would have require a bar or screwdriver to wedge or jimmy it from a closed position, but that such an action would leave a mark.

So the actual evidence from the police showed that the shutters were not capable of opening from the outside if a person used their hands. That the only way was to force it, and there was no sign of that. There were no fingerprints of Gerry's on it despite him claiming to have closed and opened it by hand from the outside about an hour before the police got there.

But the McCanns still insist that the abductor came in, opened the window and shutter and escaped with the child and somehow manged not to disturb any of the lichen that was still on the botton and sides of the frame.

Tanner's claim of seeing a person carrying a child had that person walking from the side where the window with the shutter was and also down past where Gerry was chatting to Jeremy Wilkins.

The front door is meant to have been locked and from the inside I think, so an abductor could not have gone that way.

So that leaves the back patio door that Matthew Oldfield was heading towards as said in his statement to the police.


So we have an abductor that much have jumped through the open window carrying a two stone child as the lichen on the frame showed that no hand, not even a gloved one, disturbed the lichen on the bottom or on either side of the frame.

That abductor then walked past Jane Tanner and down the lane where Gerry was talking to Jeremy.


The timeline that is being insisted upon by the McCanns along with their insistence the window was used just does not add up.


If there was an abductor, I think it may be more likely that none of the supposed extra checks happened at all, and that abductor had plenty of time to get the child and carefully leave through the patio door at a different time to when the McCanns said it happened.

Now I think that is a plausible enough explanation and I think it is one that could have happened, but the McCanns swear blind it is not possible through their statements and comments.

Their insistence that it could only have happened one way really does make it hard for other plausible explanations to be argued for them. Of course if it did happen like I suggested in that an abductor took the child at a different time due to the checks not actually happening, then they cannot admit that now as they have lied in their statements and made accusations against anyone who dared to suggest a different abduction scenario.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes, but how long after the fact? Would leather gloves leave such fibres, I wonder...

Again, I am somewhat dubious about claims that they entered or exited through the shutters anyway, as it would have been a pointlessly more difficult way for them to have entered or left the room, especially seeing as the door was unlocked.

The lichen would have been disturbed in any type of glove was pressed against it, not to mention how a person climbing out through a frame carrying a child would have disturded it.

The tests should that the lichen was not touched in quite a while and that there was no sign of anyone using the window to come in or out.


The patio door is the obvious entry and exit point for an abductor, but the McCanns say that did not happen. So if people argue that other things the McCanns say is the truth, then people have to take what they are saying about the shutters as the truth despite police tests showing it cannot have happened that way.

Little Acorn

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes, but how long after the fact? Would leather gloves leave such fibres, I wonder...

Again, I am somewhat dubious about claims that they entered or exited through the shutters anyway, as it would have been a pointlessly more difficult way for them to have entered or left the room, especially seeing as the door was unlocked.

I don't think an abudctor who was alone came through the shutters either, especially as the doors were unlocked.
The McCanns are the only people saying that an abductor entered/exited that way.
Prinz did give a good plausible theory about this though, that maybe there were two abductors and one handed Madeline out the window to a second abductor. The abductor still in the apartment then exited through the unlocked doors, whilst the other one made a get away with Madeline.

Another poster said that maybe an abductor came in through the unlocked doors, and opened the shutters from the inside, just so they would have a second escape route, incase they needed to make a quick getaway, but that as nobody showed up they didn't have o resort to exiting that way, but just walked back out the doors.
Both of these are very possible.

Kess73

maebee wrote: »

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?

Then out running I did not find overly odd, as it could be seen as them trying to get time to clear their heads and remember stuff and they could be looking around whilst jogging.


What did strike me as odd, and you mentioned it, is the fact that Gerry made a point of mentioning their running times in his blog. As someone who runs a lot in competive races and who is a regular marathon runner I do keep track of my times when in training, but if I had a child missing my running times would be of no importance to me, let alone going to the effort to get the times and put them up online plus when I am on holiday I tend not to pay much heed to my times if I go for a run along the beach.

dark crystal

Kess73 wrote: »

The lichen would have been disturbed in any type of glove was pressed against it, not to mention how a person climbing out through a frame carrying a child would have disturded it.

The tests should that the lichen was not touched in quite a while and that there was no sign of anyone using the window to come in or out.


The patio door is the obvious entry and exit point for an abductor, but the McCanns say that did not happen. So if people argue that other things the McCanns say is the truth, then people have to take what they are saying about the shutters as the truth despite police tests showing it cannot have happened that way.

Well, the McCanns were not there at the the time of the abduction, so any theory they may or may not have is just that - a theory.

Unfortunately, theories are all anyone has to go on at the present time.

All I can say is that I don't personally believe the McCanns killed and disposed of their daughter that night. I could be wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely to me, given their continued highlighting of the case, the timelines involved and the lack of any real motive or evidence to prove they did it.

Kess73

Little Acorn wrote: »

I don't think an abudctor who was alone came through the shutters either, especially as the doors were unlocked.
The McCanns are the only people saying that an abductor entered/exited that way.
Prinz did give a good plausible theory about this though, that maybe there were two abductors and one handed Madeline out the window to a second abductor. The abductor still in the apartment then exited through the unlocked doors, whilst the other one made a get away with Madeline.

Another poster said that maybe an abductor came in through the unlocked doors, and opened the shutters from the inside, just so they would have a second escape route, incase they needed to make a quick getaway, but that as nobody showed up they didn't have o resort to exiting that way, but just walked back out the doors.
Both of these are very possible.

Both of those make poerfect sense to me, especially the second one, but the McCanns refusal to even consider any other scenario bar their own one is baffling if their other statements and those of their friends were all true.


It just keeps nagging at me that either they had something to do with whatever happened to the child, or that there was a real abductor but that they lied through their teeth in the statements to try and appear like they were checking on the children.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

Well, the McCanns were not there at the the time of the abduction, so any theory they may or may not have is just that - a theory.

Unfortunately, theories are all anyone has to go on at the present time.

All I can say is that I don't personally believe the McCanns killed and disposed of their daughter that night. I could be wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely to me, given their continued highlighting of the case, the timelines involved and the lack of any real motive or evidence to prove they did it.

Exactly they were not there at the time is what we have been told over and over. Yet they are insisting that it had to have gone down as they say.

They don't put this forward as a theory they claim it to be fact and all other scenarios could not have happened.

I do think it is very plausible that they did not kill their own child and that the child was abducted by a stranger, but I do think that the timelines given to the police may not be the truth in that case.

I don't think lack of motive could be used as a reason to say they defo did nothing with the child though. I think that if they did dispose/hide a body, that it came about through some fluke tragic accident and one panicked and they were set down a path of deceit with the second one having to go along with/protect the first.

Part of me hopes they had nothing to do with the vanishing of the child (save for the obvious part of leaving three babies on their own in a foreign country) because if they were found guilty the twins would lose their parents.

But part of me also feels that if they were guilty, and I would prefer that they were not, that they have the full weight of the law thrown at them for what they did along with anyone else involved.

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

Again, I am somewhat dubious about claims that they entered or exited through the shutters anyway, as it would have been a pointlessly more difficult way for them to have entered or left the room, especially seeing as the door was unlocked.

Then you'd have to wonder why the McCanns insist that's how it went down.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

Then out running I did not find overly odd, as it could be seen as them trying to get time to clear their heads and remember stuff and they could be looking around whilst jogging.


What did strike me as odd, and you mentioned it, is the fact that Gerry made a point of mentioning their running times in his blog. As someone who runs a lot in competive races and who is a regular marathon runner I do keep track of my times when in training, but if I had a child missing my running times would be of no importance to me, let alone going to the effort to get the times and put them up online plus when I am on holiday I tend not to pay much heed to my times if I go for a run along the beach.

yes, exactly .I cant imagine it mattering a jot if my baby was missing how fast I could run . .I also think I would be out with my shovel digging up the Algarve till I found her .Maybe that s just me .

Little Acorn

dark crystal wrote: »

Well, the McCanns were not there at the the time of the abduction, so any theory they may or may not have is just that - a theory.

Unfortunately, theories are all anyone has to go on at the present time.

All I can say is that I don't personally believe the McCanns killed and disposed of their daughter that night. I could be wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely to me, given their continued highlighting of the case, the timelines involved and the lack of any real motive or evidence to prove they did it.

Well at least you are not completely closed to other possibilities like some other people seem to be.
You have at least looked at the evidence and come to your own conclusion that they are innocent.
Some people don't look at any of the evidence, and just instantly say "of course they're innocent and everybody who suggests otherwise are horrible people."
I know from your earlier posts though that you have looked at some of the files, so for that I give you credit.
I also am in agreement that I don't see how any disposing of a body could be done in the timelines, and how they could keep a facade going for so long, but I don't think it's completely impossible.

Quote Kess73: It just keeps nagging at me that either they had something to do with whatever happened to the child, or that there was a real abductor but that they lied through their teeth in the statements to try and appear like they were checking on the children.

This is pretty much how I feel too. They are imo covering something up, and it could be that that their checks were not as frequent as they say they were, or as Metrovelvet said that maybe they had too much to drink and weren't making their checks on time, or another theory is that they did sedate the children on that night only , with something they felt was a safe amount, and that Madeline got kidnapped whilst sedated.


The main things that niggle at me are the dog results,
the completely different stories regarding David Payne's last time to ever see Madeline, and jane tanners bullshít description statements.

I definitely think that an abduction could have taken place, it's just the above things are enough to leave me open to other possibilities.

If they were brought to court and based solely on all the evidence so far, I as a jury member would not be able to judge them guilty on it.
There's plenty there that makes me ask questions, but not enough that I could say "yeah, lock them up for manslaughter", because as suspicious and confusing as all the weird **** is, there is just not enough evidence for anything to be definite.
So going on that, I suppose they have to be treated as innocent unless proven guilty.
They just really don't make things easy for themselves though, by contradicting themselves and their stories!

I really hope Scotland Yard discovers something helpful for this case.

metrovelvet

iamwhoiam wrote: »

yes, exactly .I cant imagine it mattering a jot if my baby was missing how fast I could run . .I also think I would be out with my shovel digging up the Algarve till I found her .Maybe that s just me .

I think most normal parents would not get a drop of sleep for overturning every stone themsleves.

But then these are not normal people.

Whippersnapper

I don't have any theories of what might have happened but like most people I find parts of their narration odd.

Kate said on the LLS that when she went in to check on the children, she noticed that the door into the bedroom was open much wider than normal. Then she says that when she went to pull it over, a gust of wind slammed it.

So, she wasn't even going to look in on the children until that point? She was just going to pull the door over and leave? Why walk all the way over to the apartment to check on the kids and not look in on them? Were they actually just listening and then leaving again?

ISDW

Maybe the shutters were forced, the McCanns obviously know this, as they found them like that and the fact that the police have said they weren't, is why they won't answer questions. Just another possibility, but if you were them, and you knew the window was open and the shutters had been forced, but the police said they weren't, would you trust them? And, if that was the scenario, would it not make you sure that the window had some bearing on what happened?

I'm not saying the Portugese police are lying, I'm not saying the McCanns are lying, someone is, but we don't actually know who. As has been said on this thread, the police did seem to make so many mistakes, that it is feasible that lies have also been told.

lugha

prinz wrote: »

Then you'd have to wonder why the McCanns insist that's how it went down.

And I continue to wonder why everyone pays so much attention, or for that many any, to their theory of what happened. It is not their testimony. It is what they think happened.

maebee

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think most normal parents would not get a drop of sleep for overturning every stone themsleves.

But then these are not normal people.

In an interview with Jane Hill on BBC Radio, Kate McCann said she was back to sleeping normally after 5 nights. Before anyone jumps on me, I know this does not make her guilty of harming her child but it is very strange. I know that after the (natural) deaths of my parents, it took me a few months to get back to sleeping normally. If I thought my child was in the hands of an abductor, I doubt I would ever get back to sleeping normally.

maebee

ISDW wrote: »

Maybe the shutters were forced, the McCanns obviously know this, as they found them like that and the fact that the police have said they weren't, is why they won't answer questions. Just another possibility, but if you were them, and you knew the window was open and the shutters had been forced, but the police said they weren't, would you trust them? And, if that was the scenario, would it not make you sure that the window had some bearing on what happened?

I'm not saying the Portugese police are lying, I'm not saying the McCanns are lying, someone is, but we don't actually know who. As has been said on this thread, the police did seem to make so many mistakes, that it is feasible that lies have also been told.

There's no doubt that the shutters were not forced. Also, the Manager from Mark Warner, can't think of his name at the mo, and Clarence Mitchell both said the shutters were undamaged.

metrovelvet

maebee wrote: »

In an interview with Jane Hill on BBC Radio, Kate McCann said she was back to sleeping normally after 5 nights. Before anyone jumps on me, I know this does not make her guilty of harming her child but it is very strange. I know that after the (natural) deaths of my parents, it took me a few months to get back to sleeping normally. If I thought my child was in the hands of an abductor, I doubt I would ever get back to sleeping normally.

The only way if she is a normal person she could be sleeping normally is if she is drugging herself.

I totally know what you mean. I didnt sleep normally for months after my dad died.

I also didnt sleep normally for months after someone came into my house and turned the kitchen upside down while I was upstairs.

How would you ever feel safe after your personal space had been vioated and your child taken.

There is no way if my son was missing would I be sleeping normally.

These people are weird. Definitely have missing chips.

thebullkf

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

why do you keep quoting that rag..

Its sensationalist garbage nost days, pro britain, anti-foreigner nonsense.

seriously.

strandroad

I do believe that McCanns are not completely truthful in what they are saying, but I wouldn't base any assumptions on how well someone sleeps. I was through very hard times and I was sleeping like a baby, indeed going to sleep and fallling asleep was my safety valve and I dreaded waking up time. I'm sure it's quite individual.

heidi_ho

dark crystal wrote: »

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

that same paper reports in the link attached the opposite about the apartment rental
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387281/Madeleine-McCann-flat-rented-4-years-vanished.html

metrovelvet

mhge wrote: »

I do believe that McCanns are not completely truthful in what they are saying, but I wouldn't base any assumptions on how well someone sleeps. I was through very hard times and I was sleeping like a baby, indeed going to sleep and fallling asleep was my safety valve and I dreaded waking up time. I'm sure it's quite individual.

Listen, once you have a child, you never sleep the same way again EVER. You always have an ear open anyway. Believe me if your child is missing you will not sleep without drugs to help you sleep.

There are hard times and then there is your child missing or dead.

thebullkf

ISDW wrote: »

Maybe the shutters were forced, the McCanns obviously know this, as they found them like that and the fact that the police have said they weren't, is why they won't answer questions. Just another possibility, but if you were them, and you knew the window was open and the shutters had been forced, but the police said they weren't, would you trust them? And, if that was the scenario, would it not make you sure that the window had some bearing on what happened?

i agree, BUT thats a massive IF,and highly unlikely to be honest.

I'm not saying the Portugese police are lying, I'm not saying the McCanns are lying, someone is, but we don't actually know who.

we do, the McCannsare lying, omission is just the same as lying. legally speaking.
For every situation they seem to have an explanation, mostly far fetched eg Cadaver Scent off Cuddlecat.... = kate working with/in contact with corpses prior to the holiday.... who the Fuck brings their childs favourite toy in to a place where it comes into contact with dead bodies...!!!

also the blood/cadaver scent in the rental car..... according to Kate, blood seeped from Meat into the carpet...ffs :rolleyes:


I'm around a fair while,driving donkeys years... i have never ever ever spilled blood in the boot of a car (not saying its impossible mind, just highly, highly unlikely)

their story stinks.

As has been said on this thread, the police did seem to make so many mistakes, that it is feasible that lies have also been told.

they haven't made as many mistakes as the McCanns, nor told as many lies, methinks

Silver Moon

the biggest mistakes the Portugese police made was in not coming down heavy on the McCanns sooner.

Mr.Micro

Silver Moon wrote: »

the biggest mistakes the Portugese police made was in not coming down heavy on the McCanns sooner.

They allowed the controlling McCann to dominate and dictate, just like he is doing now and seems to get his way no matter what. Its now the turn of Scotland Yard to do his bidding and produce a file that he can edit.

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

i agree, BUT thats a massive IF,and highly unlikely to be honest.



we do, the McCannsare lying, omission is just the same as lying. legally speaking.
For every situation they seem to have an explanation, mostly far fetched eg Cadaver Scent off Cuddlecat.... = kate working with/in contact with corpses prior to the holiday.... who the Fuck brings their childs favourite toy in to a place where it comes into contact with dead bodies...!!!

also the blood/cadaver scent in the rental car..... according to Kate, blood seeped from Meat into the carpet...ffs :rolleyes:


I'm around a fair while,driving donkeys years... i have never ever ever spilled blood in the boot of a car (not saying its impossible mind, just highly, highly unlikely)

their story stinks.




they haven't made as many mistakes as the McCanns, nor told as many lies, methinks

Its not just that it was in the boot of the car, kids have accidents all the time, scraped knees, nosebleeds, you name it, but it was UNDER the mat...you know that thing that covers your spare wheel? ANd they also found something in the hubcap.

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not just that it was in the boot of the car, kids have accidents all the time, scraped knees, nosebleeds, you name it, but it was UNDER the mat...you know that thing that covers your spare wheel? ANd they also found something in the hubcap.

i knew about the mat......hubcap???...

weird.