Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

thebullkf

guilty;)

Larna

Guilty!

Having read every page in this thread including all links, I have no doubt that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in/responsible for their daughter's disappearance.

K-9

Not sure but do we get a hanging or a lynching at least?

Hank Scorpio

Larna wrote: »

Guilty!

Having read every page in this thread including all links, I have no doubt that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in/responsible for their daughter's disappearance.

Does involved include never checking on their children for days on end?

If that's the case I agree with your post.

foxshooter243

100 reasons why they are guilty-

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1189-100-reasons-why-madeleine-was-not-abducted

the groutch

JonB wrote: »

They must be the masters of manipulation. From bad parenting they manage to get a book deal and everyone feel sorry for them and not even a slap on the wrist.

+1, anyone else would have been done for neglect, done some jail time, and had the twins taken off them.
but such is the power of the media to intimidate law enforcers that they got away scot-free

Silver Moon

guilty of covering up the accidental death of their child

iamwhoiam

I have searched and searched and cant find the refernce to a fridge .If I remember rightly it wasnt early on it was later when they were living in a villa someone let them live in.Now to be fair I guess maybe if someone let you live in thier house and the fridge broke that maybe you would feel you had to replace it .
I dont know the facts so wouldnt make a guilty or not guilty decision .I will say a loud guilty of neglect and poor parenting though .And guilty of obstructing the course of the investigation .

Kess73

JonB wrote: »

They must be the masters of manipulation. From bad parenting they manage to get a book deal and everyone feel sorry for them and not even a slap on the wrist.

Yeah would be like the leader of a political party in power who had dodgy stories about not having a bank account, who had lots of strange lump sums given to him as dig outs, who helped get the country to the shyte it is in today, and then managed to get book deals, newspaper slots for sports and various other things without a slap on the wrist. :pac:

metrovelvet

If you had to face head on the guilt of your neglect leading to the child's abuduction you would kill yourself. Their denial is probably what is keeping them from killing themselves.

firefly08

They must be the masters of manipulation. From bad parenting they manage to get a book deal

Right, because the parents of one of the most famous disappeared children in history would otherwise have a really hard time getting a "book deal", unless they were super manipulative. Definitely.

and everyone feel sorry for them

Yeah, who'd feel sorry for them, if they weren't so manipulative? They only lost their 3 year old daughter after all. I feel so used!

and not even a slap on the wrist.

Besides the obvious, you mean? This pisses me off. What "slap on the wrist" do people expect? The investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. If they are guilty, come up with the evidence. I've seen Mr. Amaral's documentary. Since it's a privately made film and not a court of law, he can basically put whatever he likes in there. And even so, his strongest evidence is the testimony of a dog. Sure let's lock them up and throw away the key so yeah? Please.

Saila

:cool: tags

firefly08

100 reasons why they are guilty-

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11...s-not-abducted

OK, for anyone who hasn't actually clicked and through these, here's a little sample (text in bold is mine)

No Finger prints of abductor

It makes no sense, especially if (as the McCann?s claim) that this was a well planned abduction, that the abductor walks across the very road used by the parents to check on their children

If the abductor had lifted Madeleine out of the bed, then he would be carrying with her head to his right hand side, not on the left as in Tanner?s claimed sighting I find this assertion particularly baffling

The sighting was only 250 metres from the apartment

The type of trousers match those possessed by Gerry

Trousers match in terms of colour

Trousers even match in terms of the visible buttons as mentioned by one of the family

Kate complaining about the speed of a police vehicle while being take to look into a new lead at PJ HQ (sighting caught on CCTV)

It goes on like this. These are all separate "reasons" according to the author.

CK2010

firefly08 wrote: »

Right, because the parents of one of the most famous disappeared children in history would otherwise have a really hard time getting a "book deal", unless they were super manipulative. Definitely.



Yeah, who'd feel sorry for them, if they weren't so manipulative? They only lost their 3 year old daughter after all. I feel so used!



Besides the obvious, you mean? This pisses me off. What "slap on the wrist" do people expect? The investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. If they are guilty, come up with the evidence. I've seen Mr. Amaral's documentary. Since it's a privately made film and not a court of law, he can basically put whatever he likes in there. And even so, his strongest evidence is the testimony of a dog. Sure let's lock them up and throw away the key so yeah? Please.

i think the poster meant that she is the most famous etc. (leading to the book) because of their manipulation.

they didnt lose her. they walked away from her. they left her. and someone else took her. (if we're to believe that version of events). they didnt lose their child, they chose to leave her alone when they were well aware of the dangers.

the evidence of their guilt is in the fact that they left her alone. they're guilty of negligence. and we have plenty of evidence- among which is a missing child.

sunflower27

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but how much had the parents supposedly drank on the night in question?

CK2010

sunflower27 wrote: »

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but how much had the parents supposedly drank on the night in question?

apparently a bottle of wine between them before the even left the apartment. i dont know after that, would be interested to know though

sunflower27

CK2010 wrote: »

apparently a bottle of wine between them before the even left the apartment. i dont know after that, would be interested to know though

Cheers... It's no wonder none of their timelines of events are actually the same, they were probably all pissed.

CK2010

well you'd think with Gerry even writing down the timeline before the police arrived they'd be able to get it straight but obviously not!

maebee

Some interesting questions and observations from a poster on:
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic13559-2710.html

I have the book right here in front of me.
Strangely, although i have been "following" this "case" since its start, all the things i have "researched" and seen are completely at odds with what is in the book.
It's like the book is describing a totally DIFFERENT "case".

quote: "I had finished my run by five thirty at the Tapas area, where i found Madeleine and the twins ALREADY having their tea WITH Gerry. Madeleine was sitting on the Tapas terrace, eating."

But strangely enough it couldn't have been a very LONG "run" because she (KM) had signed personally for the kids from the "creche" (jellyfish) at 5:25pm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/P ... 108-118%20[112-120]/processopdf01page119-CrecheRecordsJ.jpg
She then signs, personally, for Madeleine from "lobsters" at 5:30pm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/P ... es-107-111[105-109]/processopdf01page107-CrecheRecords3.jpg

but by the time she finishes her "run" Gerry has already taken them out of the creches.
why isn't his signature on the record "sheets"?
He's the one that took them out for their tea

fontanalis

Even the bloody website can't get the girls name right.
This is truely turning into another Azaria Chamberlain/Jon Benet Ramsey case.

maebee

fontanalis wrote: »

Even the bloody website can't get the girls name right.
This is truely turning into another Azaria Chamberlain/Jon Benet Ramsey case.

What do you mean fontanalis?

fontanalis

maebee wrote: »

What do you mean fontanalis?

The almost trial by media aspect. At one stage the media where all over it trying to get the child back, I even saw a poster in a shop in Templeogue (none of missing Irish children). When it looked like the child wasn't going to be found with the help of the wonderful tabloids, things started going against the McCanns.
A friend of mine told me he read the arents went there for a swingers party.
You also have people who are convinced they know exactly what happened and how they would react to a situation they have never found themselves in, they should turn their detective skills to more local less publicised cases.
Personally i don't think they done anything to the child, they were very negligent but it doesn't make them killers.
I guarantee parents leaving their children unattended happens a lot.
And bloody hell, four years ago already.

maebee

What did you mean that the website can't get her name right? I'm a bit confused about that.

fontanalis

maebee wrote: »

What did you mean that the website can't get her name right? I'm a bit confused about that.

I thought her name was Madeline not maddie

Mountainsandh

You also have people who are convinced they know exactly what happened and how they would react to a situation they have never found themselves in, they should turn their detective skills to more local less publicised cases.

Yes. And people seem to conveniently forget this all happened in a country (even area) with a high incidence of peadophile crimes, and a police force with a reputation for corruption and lack of rigour.
Portugese police made an absolute shambles of that investigation (crime scene, to start with), and are now being cited as 100% reliable.

I know of at least one personal story that illustrates (for me) how very very corrupt the police force is/are over there. I'm sure a lot of people from Ireland also have experienced similar stories.

Her name is Madeleine.

maebee

fontanalis wrote: »

I thought her name was Madeline not maddie

Almost every member of her family called her Maddie. Plenty of examples of their direct quotes here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id169.html


And from Gerry's FriendsReunited site:

'April 2005- Back in Leicester and looking for a job. Now father of three with Sean and Amelie joing Maddie.'

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/friendsreunited.jpg&target=tlx_piclqkt

mydearwatson

fontanalis wrote: »

I thought her name was Madeline not maddie

Madeleine, not Madeline, actually. As per the "official" website. http://www.findmadeleine.com

I don't think that her parents can control the spelling of her name in other websites, media, etc.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but how much had the parents supposedly drank on the night in question?

CK2010 wrote: »

apparently a bottle of wine between them before the even left the apartment. i dont know after that, would be interested to know though

A grown man and woman have a few drinks while on holiday.....SHOCKER!

Saila

die thread DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE
is there a way to block threads which you dont want to show up when you log-in

Savage Tyrant

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A grown man and woman have a few drinks while on holiday.....SHOCKER!

Shocker indeed when you haven't paid for a babysitter.