Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say everybody agrees with that, at the bare minimum, even Audrey and mrsbyrne! To me statements were "economical with the truth" to make it look like checks took place much more than they did that night.

Tbh I still think the McCann's are in denial of their negligence and the Lenihanesque "sure nobody saw this coming" line facilitates their denial.

After that we probably will never know, which is why people read into the rest of it.

They have to or they would kill themselves. Guilt is powerfully destructive. This whole project of theirs is an ambition to dodge the guilt that would put them into a grave.

Tigger

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I dont know Madeleine or her family and both my husband and I were in Praia da Luz 10 months after she went missing .We both found ourselves when out in the car looking for her everywhere we went .Not actively with shovels but we found ourselves when out waking or driving , looking in the ditches and odd places . We knew she was gone but it was instictive . I know that I would dig the Western Algarve up with my finger nails if one of my kids were missing .Day in day out .I would have pulled everyone bin and dumpster apart , every bush , every hole . Till this day I will never know how her mother and her father went jogging( and timed it ) in the weeks following . It amazes me that they never actually went searching in the days after .

one day me and a friend were out with our dogs,
we'd never been to the forest we came to so we didn't realise how big it was. foolishly we let the dogs off, we stayed out for up on 60 hours looking till we found them (we rang our partners got them to bring soup and torches ) but we finished when we found the second dog and we'd still be there if we hadn't .

i don't believe the mcanns story for a second

PostHack

Tigger wrote: »

one day me and a friend were out with our dogs,
we'd never been to the forest we came to so we didn't realise how big it was. foolishly we let the dogs off, we stayed out for up on 60 hours looking till we found them (we rang our partners got them to bring soup and torches ) but we finished when we found the second dog and we'd still be there if we hadn't .

i don't believe the mcanns story for a second

60 hours??! Typo??

deco nate

PostHack wrote: »

60 hours??! Typo??

if you care about something,or someone...
time does not matter,if you care about it:rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say everybody agrees with that, at the bare minimum, even Audrey and mrsbyrne! To me statements were "economical with the truth" to make it look like checks took place much more than they did that night.

Tbh I still think the McCann's are in denial of their negligence and the Lenihanesque "sure nobody saw this coming" line facilitates their denial.

After that we probably will never know, which is why people read into the rest of it.

I would agree with this. I have said all along that I do not absolve the McCanns of all blame.

I just feel that if they are hiding something it is probably how often they checked on the babies. I don't believe they are hiding that they hurt or killed their daughter intentionally or otherwise.

Of course if I am wrong I will be first to admit it.

Mistyeyes321

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would agree with this. I have said all along that I do not absolve the McCanns of all blame.

I just feel that if they are hiding something it is probably how often they checked on the babies. I don't believe they are hiding that they hurt or killed their daughter intentionally or otherwise.

Of course if I am wrong I will be first to admit it.

I agree I beleive it's the Checking they're hiding all of them not just the MCS their Friend's too!

Does anyone know or have a link to the Comment's regarding the Pact Of Silence?! Also what are ppl's thought's on the reason for this Pact?!

Going back alittle to the report someone posted about DNA being found could someone be kind enough to explain this to me in more Detail, "Like i'm a Six year old please" :pac: Science I just don't get...Something else I seen on this thread was that MRS MC Took Cuddle cat to work, Now correct me here, But I was under the impression this took place before they went to Portugal not after, Can anyone enlighten me on this?!
Wasn't there also some kind of reference to A Women who was Performing in the Tapas Bar that night who Gerry invited over for Drink's when she had finished her Act. OR was this the night before when Mrs M ended up sleeping in the Children's room?! Thank's in Advance.:)

sunflower27

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I agree I beleive it's the Checking they're hiding all of them not just the MCS their Friend's too!

Does anyone know or have a link to the Comment's regarding the Pact Of Silence?! Also what are ppl's thought's on the reason for this Pact?!

Going back alittle to the report someone posted about DNA being found could someone be kind enough to explain this to me in more Detail, "Like i'm a Six year old please" :pac: Science I just don't get...Something else I seen on this thread was that MRS MC Took Cuddle cat to work, Now correct me here, But I was under the impression this took place before they went to Portugal not after, Can anyone enlighten me on this?!
Wasn't there also some kind of reference to A Women who was Performing in the Tapas Bar that night who Gerry invited over for Drink's when she had finished her Act. OR was this the night before when Mrs M ended up sleeping in the Children's room?! Thank's in Advance.:)

The only answer I can give to any of that is Kate said she took the stuffed toy (Cuddle Cat, not Gerry) to work before she went to Portugal and that was meant to explain the scent of death on it.

And if you believe that.... :rolleyes:

Kess73

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I agree I beleive it's the Checking they're hiding all of them not just the MCS their Friend's too!

Does anyone know or have a link to the Comment's regarding the Pact Of Silence?! Also what are ppl's thought's on the reason for this Pact?!

Going back alittle to the report someone posted about DNA being found could someone be kind enough to explain this to me in more Detail, "Like i'm a Six year old please" :pac: Science I just don't get...Something else I seen on this thread was that MRS MC Took Cuddle cat to work, Now correct me here, But I was under the impression this took place before they went to Portugal not after, Can anyone enlighten me on this?!
Wasn't there also some kind of reference to A Women who was Performing in the Tapas Bar that night who Gerry invited over for Drink's when she had finished her Act. OR was this the night before when Mrs M ended up sleeping in the Children's room?! Thank's in Advance.:)

The woman that came over to the table was the quiz master after the table quiz was finished. She joined their table after nine on the night that Madeline was reported missing.

Her statement to the police clashes somewhat with the statements of the friends of the McCanns in terms of the checks that were meant to have taken place.

I would have to go back and re read what was published, something I did a week or two ago when I put up her name and times from her statement in this thread, but I am pretty sure that she said that Gerry did leave the table at around 21:10 or 21:15 but that she could remember nobody else leaving the table whilst she was there.

If her statement is correct then it means that Tanner and Oldfield could not have been away from the table when they claimed they were.

Basically there is that woman's statement, Gerry's statement, Kate's statement, Tanner's statement, Oldfield's statement, and Jeremy Wilkin's statement (he was the man who stopped chatting to Gerry in the very lane and at approx the same time that Tanner claimed she was in that lane looking at the man carrying the child) which all take in the time between approx 21:10 and 21:30, yet for such a short time there is a lot of contradicting points from those statements.

If the quiz master lady is telling the truth, then Tanner and Oldfield never left the table meaning everyone who said they did was lying.

If Jeremy Wilkins is telling the truth, then I fail to see how Tanner's statement is true as she should have seen Gerry and Wilkins in the lane, and Wilkins states that he saw neither Tanner nor the mystery person carrying a child, despite him being in that lane with Gerry when Tanner claims to be there.

If the McCanns and friends are telling the truth, then that would mean the two people not related to their group were lying, but Wilkins cannot be lying about where he was unless Gerry was lying as well as Gerry has stated that he did indeed meet him and stood chatting with him for a bit. Plus Gerry cannot be in a position to back Tanner's claim of being away from the table because he was not at the table himself at that time and as such cannot back her story.

The only person that every statement would back as being one who did indeed leave the table is Gerry McCann.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

.

Basically there is that woman's statement, Gerry's statement, Kate's statement, Tanner's statement, Oldfield's statement, and Jeremy Wilkin's statement (he was the man who stopped chatting to Gerry in the very lane and at approx the same time that Tanner claimed she was in that lane looking at the man carrying the child) which all take in the time between approx 21:10 and 21:30, yet for such a short time there is a lot of contradicting points from those statements.


If Jeremy Wilkins is telling the truth, then I fail to see how Tanner's statement is true as she should have seen Gerry and Wilkins in the lane, and Wilkins states that he saw neither Tanner nor the mystery person carrying a child, despite him being in that lane with Gerry when Tanner claims to be there.
.

Just to clear up one small matter , it wasnt a lane as we know lane ,It is a road where two cars can pass each other with footpaths on either side and lit by street lamps .

Kess73

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Just to clear up one small matter , it wasnt a lane as we know lane ,It is a road where two cars can pass each other with footpaths on either side and lit by street lamps .

I know that, but the stretch involved was well lit and in a straight line, so Tanner walking on it should have seen Gerry talking to Wilkins, and they should have seen her and of course the mystery man with the child that Tanner claims was there at that time.

Tanner's statement just does not sound all that plausible at the best of times, and that's before we take her multiple changing of the skin colour and sex of who she claims to have seen carrying the child.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

I know that, but the stretch involved was well lit and in a straight line, so Tanner walking on it should have seen Gerry talking to Wilkins, and they should have seen her and of course the mystery man with the child that Tanner claims was there at that time.

Tanner's statement just does not sound all that plausible at the best of times, and that's before we take her multiple changing of the skin colour and sex of who she claims to have seen carrying the child.

I agree that Tanner is completely unbelievable ,but calling it a lane is deceptive . As far as I know she claimes to have seen the " man " on the road that crosses it diagonally across so he wouldnt have passed Gerry and Wilkins .
Where R Agostinho da Silva crosses Rua F .Gentil Martins is where she allegedly saw this man who seems to change his description quite often .I just wonder why a grown educated woman would not find it extraordinary that her own story keeps changing . Very odd .

Spanish Eyes

I know the McCanns were hoping for a review of the case by Scotland Yard.

They got their wish. I wonder what it will show? Something new, or a snow job?

They seem determined enough though as the Yard says there will be "No Limits" on the review.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/no-limits-on-review-of-mccann-investigation-2656480.html

Mr.Micro

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I know the McCanns were hoping for a review of the case by Scotland Yard.

They got their wish. I wonder what it will show? Something new, or a snow job?

They seem determined enough though as the Yard says there will be "No Limits" on the review.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/no-limits-on-review-of-mccann-investigation-2656480.html

I wonder does that mean actually thoroughly questioning the McCanns and their pals? If not then do not bother with any review.....and if SC do not then we will see it is just another whitewash, this time at considerable waste of police time and expense.

Mistyeyes321

sunflower27 wrote: »

The only answer I can give to any of that is Kate said she took the stuffed toy (Cuddle Cat, not Gerry) to work before she went to Portugal and that was meant to explain the scent of death on it.

And if you believe that.... :rolleyes:

Thanks Appreciated, So is the Stuffed Toy Comment:D
I thought it was supossed to be before they went to Portugal & No I certainly Don't believe it:eek:

Still oneway of finding out is by searching records of MRS M Caseload Prior to the Fiasco in Portugal. I'm hoping "SY" don't over look this Oppotunity. Maybe i'm wrong on this too. But sure I read somewhere these Files were Refused to the PJ. If True I wonder why they was? & Will it be the same Excuse they give to "SY "MMM.

Mistyeyes321

Kess73 wrote: »

The woman that came over to the table was the quiz master after the table quiz was finished. She joined their table after nine on the night that Madeline was reported missing.

Her statement to the police clashes somewhat with the statements of the friends of the McCanns in terms of the checks that were meant to have taken place.

I would have to go back and re read what was published, something I did a week or two ago when I put up her name and times from her statement in this thread, but I am pretty sure that she said that Gerry did leave the table at around 21:10 or 21:15 but that she could remember nobody else leaving the table whilst she was there.

If her statement is correct then it means that Tanner and Oldfield could not have been away from the table when they claimed they were.

Basically there is that woman's statement, Gerry's statement, Kate's statement, Tanner's statement, Oldfield's statement, and Jeremy Wilkin's statement (he was the man who stopped chatting to Gerry in the very lane and at approx the same time that Tanner claimed she was in that lane looking at the man carrying the child) which all take in the time between approx 21:10 and 21:30, yet for such a short time there is a lot of contradicting points from those statements.

If the quiz master lady is telling the truth, then Tanner and Oldfield never left the table meaning everyone who said they did was lying.

If Jeremy Wilkins is telling the truth, then I fail to see how Tanner's statement is true as she should have seen Gerry and Wilkins in the lane, and Wilkins states that he saw neither Tanner nor the mystery person carrying a child, despite him being in that lane with Gerry when Tanner claims to be there.

If the McCanns and friends are telling the truth, then that would mean the two people not related to their group were lying, but Wilkins cannot be lying about where he was unless Gerry was lying as well as Gerry has stated that he did indeed meet him and stood chatting with him for a bit. Plus Gerry cannot be in a position to back Tanner's claim of being away from the table because he was not at the table himself at that time and as such cannot back her story.

The only person that every statement would back as being one who did indeed leave the table is Gerry McCann.

Great Post with some excellent point's.

Firstly I wouldn't Believe anything Tanner has to say her Statement's are of Comedy Value to anyone with Half a Functioning Braincell...IMHO one lie after another after Another etc etc:rolleyes:
Just a shame a Child's Life hung in the Balance if we're to Believe the Abduction Theory,!
I also Beleive the Lady who said the only Person she noticed Leave was Gerry Mc. What possible Motive could she have for Lieing? None what so ever...Unlike the Rest of the Mcs Friends!! Also I'm sure I read somewhere Gerry didn't even Check the Children at that Time just Listened outside the door for any noise. Again this could be wrong & i'm open to anyone who could correct me on this!

Mentioning Gerry & Wilkins talking in the Road when Tanner is supposed to have gone past, Doesn't it strike you as Rather odd that all three people claim they never seen eachother apart from Gerry?!

No one saw Tanner not Gerry not Wilkins, How could they both Miss not only Tanner but the So Called Abductor too? I mean am I right in saying according to Tanner the Only People on that Road, Was Herself Gerry, Wilkins. & of Course the Man carrying a Child? So why didn't Gerry & Wilkins see this Person? & Also surely if you was leaving your children alone night after night you would be more Vigilant to who was walking around this Complex when you went to do your Checks??!

I've got a Funny feeling SY are going to be wasteing their time & Money on this Shower because I believe not one of them is Truthfull & how Sad is that when a Child is missing?!

Regarding the Comment's made by MRS M. That the Children had been Drugged, Wasn't the children tested some week's after they arrived home from Portugal? & Wasn't their some talk about the Children having had their Hair cut?! I can't remember why this has stayed in my Mind! Anyone know anything regarding this? & Thank You all for your Replies Much Appreciated.:)

Mistyeyes321

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I wonder does that mean actually thoroughly questioning the McCanns and their pals? If not then do not bother with any review.....and if SC do not then we will see it is just another whitewash, this time at considerable waste of police time and expense.

Have only just spotted this Post....All I can add TO this is I hope both you & I are Wrong on this View,. But I have a very bad Gut Feeling the MCS will walk all over "SY" As they have with the PJ...Nothing will surprise me with this Lot "The Mc's & their Friends" It seem's to me they have already pulled the wool over most peoples eyes & will Continue to do so..:rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

deco nate wrote: »

if you care about something,or someone...
time does not matter,if you care about it:rolleyes:

Indeed.....which is no doubt why the McCanns have spent 4 YEARS looking for Madeleine.

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Indeed.....which is no doubt why the McCanns have spent 4 YEARS looking for Madeleine.

By obstructing the investigation by refusing to answer questions?

Or maybe you mean looking for her while out jogging?!

:eek:

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

By obstructing the investigation by refusing to answer questions?

Or maybe you mean looking for her while out jogging?!

:eek:

So what, they are not allowed to try and do normal things, live as normal a life as they can?

As for not answering questions, it is common practice for lawyers to advise people involved in criminal cases, or any cases, not answer question in case they incriminate themselves, particularly if they haven't actually done anything wrong.

I'm guessing this might be the case for the McCanns.

No need for the EEK either, I don't think I said anything that radical.

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So what, they are not allowed to try and do normal things, live as normal a life as they can?

As for not answering questions, it is common practice for lawyers to advise people involved in criminal cases, or any cases, not answer question in case they incriminate themselves, particularly if they haven't actually done anything wrong.

I'm guessing this might be the case for the McCanns.

No need for the EEK either, I don't think I said anything that radical.

And I'm guessing it's EEKable to go off jogging having made no effort to physically search, and then come back and blog about your times.

I'd EEK in the face of a lawyer that advised me not to answer questions in a case like this. I'd be giving every little detail I could. Pretty hard to incriminate yourself if you've nothing to hide.

mrsbyrne

sunflower27 wrote: »

The only answer I can give to any of that is Kate said she took the stuffed toy (Cuddle Cat, not Gerry) to work before she went to Portugal and that was meant to explain the scent of death on it.

And if you believe that.... :rolleyes:

i see that this is now an almost fully-blown mccann hate thread complete with mccann-haters working in tag teams on a shift basis. not completely fully blown, though, because we have yet to have the obnoxious totally irrelevant critiscm of kate mccanns dress sense, hairstyle, earrings etc. so transparently jealous and envy filled that it would be laughable were it not so nauseating. over on your mother site missingmadeleine this week this culminated in a poster actually ringing the mccanns hotel in Portugal in an effort to locate them with a view to "burning Kate Mccann"!i kid you not and can provide links if needed. lovely!but your getting there guys, so keep it up! only problem is that after 4 exhausting years and thousands of posts where exactly has all this got you?what have any of you achieved? not one single iota, thats what.now please carry on.

ISDW

elviscostello wrote: »

And I'm guessing it's EEKable to go off jogging having made no effort to physically search, and then come back and blog about your times.

I'd EEK in the face of a lawyer that advised me not to answer questions in a case like this. I'd be giving every little detail I could. Pretty hard to incriminate yourself if you've nothing to hide.

Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever been convicted of a crime they didn't commit?

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

And I'm guessing it's EEKable to go off jogging having made no effort to physically search, and then come back and blog about your times.

I'd EEK in the face of a lawyer that advised me not to answer questions in a case like this. I'd be giving every little detail I could. Pretty hard to incriminate yourself if you've nothing to hide.

Not really. Things can be taken out of context, twisted to suit the other side's argument. Something totally innocent can be taken as confessing to the crime.

_feedback_

ISDW wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever been convicted of a crime they didn't commit?

No. Don't know of any parents of missing children that were wrongfully convicted though. I specificially said, in this type of case. Refusing answer questions in relation to your childs disappearance is weird.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not really. Things can be taken out of context, twisted to suit the other side's argument. Something totally innocent can be taken as confessing to the crime.

Surely, you'd take those risks and answer the questions regardless? If it may help find your child?

ISDW

mrsbyrne wrote: »

i see that this is now an almost fully-blown mccann hate thread complete with mccann-haters working in tag teams on a shift basis. not completely fully blown, though, because we have yet to have the obnoxious totally irrelevant critiscm of kate mccanns dress sense, hairstyle, earrings etc. so transparently jealous and envy filled that it would be laughable were it not so nauseating. over on your mother site missingmadeleine this week this culminated in a poster actually ringing the mccanns hotel in Portugal in an effort to locate them with a view to "burning Kate Mccann"!i kid you not and can provide links if needed. lovely!but your getting there guys, so keep it up! only problem is that after 4 exhausting years and thousands of posts where exactly has all this got you?what have any of you achieved? not one single iota, thats what.now please carry on.

I guess its gone that way because I, and others who have consistently said we don't know what happened and so don't want to be accusing people of something that they maybe didn't do, have stopped posting in the thread. Its pointless, there are people on here who apparently 'know' that the McCanns are involved in the disappearance of their daughter and anybody who may not agree with them (or may not disagree with them, as actually none of us know) get jumped on. I read this thread every now and then, so may have missed a few posts, but I did see an interesting one a few pages back about what DNA was actually found. I haven't seem many people (if any) responding to it, because it doesn't fit in with their view of the evil McCanns.

ISDW

elviscostello wrote: »

No. Don't know of any parents of missing children that were wrongfully convicted though. I specificially said, in this type of case. Refusing answer questions in relation to your childs disappearance is weird.

Really? Maybe you want to go back and read the thread - the child that was taken by a dingo ring any bells?

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

No. Don't know of any parents of missing children that were wrongfully convicted though. I specificially said, in this type of case. Refusing answer questions in relation to your childs disappearance is weird.



Surely, you'd take those risks and answer the questions regardless? If it may help find your child?

Not if I felt the police would waste valuable time investigating me when they should have been looking for her.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not if I felt the police would waste valuable time investigating me when they should have been looking for her.

Eh, they were looking for her! By interrogating the McCann's but that seems incomprehensible to some.

AudreyHepburn

K-9 wrote: »

Eh, they were looking for her! By interrogating the McCann's but that seems incomprehensible to some.

But if the McCanns are innocent, as I believe they are, then valuable time was wasted treating them like they killed Madeleine.

Mr.Micro

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not if I felt the police would waste valuable time investigating me when they should have been looking for her.

Absolute nonsense. A case of self preservation 100% her and him. Possibly 2 of the most selfish, immature, self serving individuals one will ever see and hope not to meet. Many of the unanswered questions were simple and innocuous, but she refused to answer eg when did you last see Madeleine? No answer.