Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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

There is enough there to suspect otherwise so no, valuable time wasn't wasted. The police opinion stands for more to me than a few internet posters "belief".

Seachmall

Mr.Micro wrote: »

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.

You have to appreciate that she was in a foreign country with language barriers and no understanding of how the police operate. If my lawyer insinuated they could try to pin it on me and advised me to keep shut I probably would too. There are too many unknown factors to try and reach a conclusion on why she refused to answer questions.

I'm surprised too that she did refuse but there are innocent reasons as to why she may have done so.

AudreyHepburn

K-9 wrote: »

There is enough there to suspect otherwise so no, valuable time wasn't wasted. The police opinion stands for more to me than a few internet posters "belief".

The police.....whose leader indulged in liquid lunches when he should have been searching and who are willing to beat confessions out of people (deserved or otherwise) and then lie about it.

Yes very trustworthy.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The police.....whose leader indulged in liquid lunches when he should have been searching and who are willing to beat confessions out of people (deserved or otherwise) and then lie about it.

Yes very trustworthy.

Ah yeah character assassination, the very thing you give out about.

Maybe they'll be more cooperative with SY.

AudreyHepburn

Mr.Micro wrote: »

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.

We must be looking at two different couples so.

I see nothing remotely immature, selfish or self-serving in devoting your lives to finding your missing daughter.

Of course since some people here seem to have insider knowledge that the McCanns are in fact responsible obviously they will see it differently.

AudreyHepburn

K-9 wrote: »

Ah yeah character assassination, the very thing you give out about.

Maybe they'll be more cooperative with SY.

The truth, nothing more. Amaral drank on the job and covered up for collegues who beat a confession out of a woman (again deserved it may have been).

That's not a trustworthy man imo, even if his heart was in the right place re the beatings.

_feedback_

ISDW wrote: »

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

I have read the thread thanks. Reference to that case passed me by. Chances of it happening are fairly slim, lets be fair. I think being wrongfully locked up would be the last thing on my mind when being asked to assist in the investigation of my childs disappearance...... if I am completely innocent.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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

Wasting time jogging is ok though?

Investigating is a key word there. If it is part of the investigation in to your childs disappearance, refusing to help can not be normal.

AudreyHepburn

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.

In fairness any thread relating to Madeleine usually ends up descending into McCann hating farce.

It is shocking the number of people willingy subscribing to 'Guily until proven Innocent 'in regard to Kate and Gerry but those of us with a more open mind can see past it.

I have always said if they are guilty I will be the first to stand up and say I was wrong but until I see concrete proof I elect to give them the benefit of the doubt.

They have been through a hell no parent should have to endure and I for one do wish to add to their suffering with mindless insults and groundless accusations.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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

In any case where a child goes missing or is killed the parents get questioned. Partly to get them off the list of suspects, and partly because there is a pretty high % of cases where either the parents, a relative or family friend is involved.

I see nothing wrong in doing that with the McCanns or anyone else in the same situation.

The McCanns became official suspects because the only bits of evidence that could be found led in their direction, which of course does not mean they are guilty if doing something to their child but it does explain why the police of two different countries ended up coming to the same opinion in what they thought may have happened.

The only thing I think that is certain in this case is that the McCanns showed some awful parenting skills on the night in question.

But nobody can say for sure that they are guilty of doing something to their child because there simply is not enough evidence to support that, but the flip side of that is that nobody here can say that they know for certain that the McCanns are 100% as again there is no evidence of that.

Some weeks back I likened this case for as long as it remains unsolved to being similar to the train of thought behind Schrodinger's cat, as until conclusive evidence is found the McCanns are simultaneously innocent and guilty in terms of potential.


I personally find some of what was said in the statements, especially those of some of their friends as being potentially made up, but even if those statements are false, that may only be due to them lying in order to cover up lack of checks as in those early hours people may have thought that the Portugese laws on child neglect were similar to the English ones when in reality they are not as strict.

That scenario would have the McCanns and co as being guilty of lying in their statements in an effort to save face, but could still well mean that an abductor did take their child from them. I actually think that this scenario may hold water but we may never find out.

I also think what works against the McCanns is the fact they point blank refuse to take any other potential scenario in terms of how an abductor came and left the apartment area on board, claiming that all other versions simply could not have happened.

The simple fact is that if they were at the table then they could not have any idea as to what the abductor or abductors did or did not do in the apartment, let alone know exactly how they entered and left and also have the time frame down to such a fine margin. I think the McCanns would have been better served to have, publically at least, kept an open mind as to how an abductor may have gone about it.

Just because someone suggests an abductor came or left a different way does not mean they are guilty, it just means that the child was taken in a different way by some stranger to what they say. They just fight a bit too hard on that point for my liking.

As I have said a few times in this thread, I don't know if they are innocent or guilty and I would be no more surprised if the outcome was one and not the other either way, but there are a lot of very odd things about this case that do not seem to sit right, and I think that is what gets a lot of people sitting up and going "hmmmmmm".

But at this point, some four years later, all people can base their opinions on is the actual evidence that has been published and things like the conflicting timeliones/statements. Everything else is pure guesswork/gut feeling based on whether people like or dislike the public personas shown by the McCanns and whether people like/dislike what they heard the police of Portugal and England say is their professional opinion on what may have happened.

I'm not a McCann hater and I don't think they are evil as that other poster's laughable post said people here who question things must do, but the waters are muddied in this case and there is enough for there to be doubt either way.

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

Wasting time jogging is ok though?

In Kate McCann's book, which I am reading, she says they used their jogging trips to look for Madeleine as they went along.

I'd also imagine they just needed to clear their heads too.

Investigating is a key word there. If it is part of the investigation in to your childs disappearance, refusing to help can not be normal.

As has been explained it is a perfectly normal thing to do.

Mr.Micro

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

We must be looking at two different couples so.

I see nothing remotely immature, selfish or self-serving in devoting your lives to finding your missing daughter.

Of course since some people here seem to have insider knowledge that the McCanns are in fact responsible obviously they will see it differently.

The did no want to look after their children.....just to party with their pals. and fun for them. They failed to take responsibility for their actions and neglect. They have spent the last 4 years exploiting their little girl in selling trinkets and making money on her image. Setting up a fund that is a business employing McCann' brother. etc. Any one one time they could have asked the Portuguese to re-open the case, they never have to this day.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The truth, nothing more. Amaral drank on the job and covered up for collegues who beat a confession out of a woman (again deserved it may have been).

That's not a trustworthy man imo, even if his heart was in the right place re the beatings.

Ok if we rule out Amaral, and say that the McCanns were right not to trust him, and by association the entire Portugese police force, what then explains the comments made about the British police force and the investigations done by that force?

They had a lot of nasty things to say about that police force as well, and also refused to answer certain questions there, and what is even more odd is that when they registered their case with the british police they did not oficially register it as a child abduction, but instead registered it as being a case of a disappeared child.

This is interesting because if the child was registered as being abducted and the statements about the checks were proven false, then they could be done under UK law for neglect. But if they were 100% sure of what their friends were saying, then surely the case should have been registered as an abduction the same as they insisted it was in Portugal.

They also had public spats with five dectective agencies that they hired themselves and went on to slag all of them off in public as well, saying they were wastes of money/not good at their jobs.

It just seems that they have fallen out badly with every organisation that was
brought in to help find their child and did not want to co operate in terms of questions/reconstructions/lie dectectors (thos one bit them on the ass as they went to the media saying they would take lie dectectors then when asked they refused point blank)

Now none of this makes them guilty of doing something to their child, nor does it make that scenario any more likely than it already is, but it does paint them as potentially being the types who want everything their own way and that there may be something in the case that they don't want to get out.


Possibly the times of the checks or none checks.


I think a lot of the truth for this case lies with the friend's statements.

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In fairness any thread relating to Madeleine usually ends up descending into McCann hating farce.

It is shocking the number of people willingy subscribing to 'Guily until proven Innocent 'in regard to Kate and Gerry but those of us with a more open mind can see past it.

I have always said if they are guilty I will be the first to stand up and say I was wrong but until I see concrete proof I elect to give them the benefit of the doubt.

They have been through a hell no parent should have to endure and I for one do wish to add to their suffering with mindless insults and groundless accusations.

Who has expressed any hatred? Most people have expressed sympathy towards them, but have had the open mindedness to take many scenarios on board.

Of course they have been through hell, and of course no parent should have to endure it. But no child should have to endure being left on their own and most likely dying as a result of it.

Mindless insults and groundless accusations? What about the mindless, groundless, hurtful and extremely damaging accusations made against Robert Murat?

Seachmall

I think some people here might find this blog interesting.

The McCanns - EyesforLies

The author of that blog is one of the few people who are labeled "Truth Wizards", that is she has a scientifically proven innate ability to interpret subtle signs of distress and, with near perfect accuracy, deduce if someone is lying.

Here's the Wiki article on the experiment (yes, the project was scientifically valid and was repeated at least once with similar results).

Of course she is not exempt from personal bias or mistakes, nor would any of this be admissible in a court but it is interesting none-the-less.

dark crystal

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.

The Lindy Chamberlain case is a prime example of the public jumping to their own conclusions and the parents being wrongfully convicted of the murder of their baby daughter.

Another case, that of David and Cynthia Dowaliby is also quite similar : http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/ilDowalibySummary.html

The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey also has similar conotations to that of the McCann case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

In all these cases, the parents of the children co-operated with police and were still believed to have been involved by the authorities. There were many 'hypothesis'' put foward, but none of them appear to have any truth in relation to the parents involvement and the cases remain unsolved.

Sometimes, the police will cling to the belief that the parents were involved because it seems the most straightforward theory - this certainly doesn't mean they're right.

Kess73

Seachmall wrote: »

I think some people here might find this blog interesting.

The McCanns - EyesforLies

The author of that blog is one of the few people who are labeled "Truth Wizards", that is she has a scientifically proven innate ability to interpret subtle signs of distress and, with near perfect accuracy, deduce if someone is lying.

Here's the Wiki article on the experiment (yes, the project was scientifically valid and was repeated at least once with similar results).

Have to be honest and say that I would put that blog and supposed expert in with the other experts who popped up blogs about how they were 100% sure the McCanns were guilty.

_feedback_

dark crystal wrote: »

The Lindy Chamberlain case is a prime example of the public jumping to their own conclusions and the parents being wrongfully convicted of the murder of their baby daughter.

Another case, that of David and Cynthia Dowaliby is also quite similar : http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/ilDowalibySummary.html

The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey also has similar conotations to that of the McCann case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

In all these cases, the parents of the children co-operated with police and were still believed to have been involved by the authorities. There were many 'hypothesis'' put foward, but none of them appear to have any truth in relation to the parents involvement and the cases remain unsolved.

Sometimes, the police will cling to the belief that the parents were involved because it seems the most straightforward theory - this certainly doesn't mean they're right.

Thanks. I'm heading off shortly so dont have time to read them. I've no problem saying I was wrong with that comment, but still would stick by my belief that refusing to answer questions especially in this type of case, stinks.

Seachmall

Kess73 wrote: »

Have to be honest and say that I would put that blog and supposed expert in with the other experts who popped up blogs about how they were 100% sure the McCanns were guilty.

The difference is she has a scientifically proven ability to read people. She's not someone who spent 4 years in a lecture hall and claims to be an expert. She was part of a perfectly valid scientific experiment. For all intensive purposes she can read people to an nth degree.

dark crystal

elviscostello wrote: »

Thanks. I'm heading off shortly so dont have time to read them. I've no problem saying I was wrong with that comment, but still would stick by my belief that refusing to answer questions especially in this type of case, stinks.

I think their refusal to answer specific questions would have been made on the advice of their lawyer after they became arguidos, or official suspects, not simply because they were trying to hide their supposed guilt, but because of the rights afforded to them as arguidos.

Some info on the whole thing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6657977.stm

"A person can ask for arguido status if they feel the line of questioning is implying that they are a suspect. This gives them more rights than a witness would have"

"Now the moment he is constituted as arguido, as the defendant, then he can not only refuse to answer questions because they can incriminate him, but also he has the right to be accompanied in the questionings by his own solicitor."

So, they seem to have followed normal Portugese police procedure by not answering certain questions they felt may have impeded the case by primarily focusing on them as suspects.

Mountainsandh

If I was in their situation and had been a first witness (and victim) to how incompetent and corrupt the police force over there were during the investigation, I would be very weary indeed of answering any more questions.

They are educated and quickly realized how poorly the case was being handled. It's not rocket science, and it makes absolute sense not to be willing to answer all questions.

Just like it makes absolute sense to watch what you are saying in interviews to the media, and to lie if necessary (to the media) , to keep the inquest going despite the speculations.

I would absolutely lie and change my behaviour in front of the cameras if I thought this could save my child's life or help me find her.

Kess73

Seachmall wrote: »

The difference is she has a scientifically proven ability to read people. She's not someone who spent 4 years in a lecture hall and claims to be an expert. She was part of a perfectly valid scientific experiment. For all intensive purposes she can read people to an nth degree.

And there were people who were supposedly qualified in body language and what not who had lots of experience helping police and who had their abilities praised by police who came out and said that in their view the McCanns were guilty.


I am putting both sets in together because if either were capable of actually proving their claims the McCanns would have been found totally innocent or totally guilty by now.

Reading that blog does not make me think the McCanns are more innocent, just as reading the blogs of other experts did not make me think the McCanns were anymore guilty of something.

Plenty of people on here said we should not judge the McCanns on how they act whilst in the media or on their personalities, so that same line should apply here with this blog as well.

Because if people are going to say that this blog is some kind of proof that the McCanns are innocent because an "expert" says so, then it means that the claims of other body language "experts" who say the opposite about the McCanns become just as valid as a result.


I have no idea if the McCanns are guilty or not. In my mind they could just as easily be innocent of anything to do with harming the child. The expert from the blog never met the McCanns and is basing everything from watching them in an interview on tv. So what was seen was what the cameras allowed to be seen or what a clever camera man or editor wanted to be seen.

Kess73

Mountainsandh wrote: »

If I was in their situation and had been a first witness (and victim) to how incompetent and corrupt the police force over there were during the investigation, I would be very weary indeed of answering any more questions.

They are educated and quickly realized how poorly the case was being handled. It's not rocket science, and it makes absolute sense not to be willing to answer all questions.

Just like it makes absolute sense to watch what you are saying in interviews to the media, and to lie if necessary (to the media) , to keep the inquest going despite the speculations.

I would absolutely lie and change my behaviour in front of the cameras if I thought this could save my child's life or help me find her.

We only have the McCanns word on the police force there being corrupt and incompetent though. The fact that the Portugese police have a great track record in similar cases seems to be overlooked.

Seems a massive coincidence that the British police, that the McCanns wanted involved, suddenly got tarred with the same brush by the McCanns once the McCanns disagreed with them as well.

I guess the British police must be incompetent and corrupt as well as their investigation ended up echoing the opinion of the Portugese police.

People seem to totally ignore the falling out with the British police or the fact that the dogs etc involved came from the UK and were with British divisions.


I really don't see how lying through the media could be seen as a good strategy against the police, afterall if you get caught out lying on one thing it suddenly casts doubt on everything you said or claimed was true.

LizT

I have read the book and it was a really interesting read. Before reading, I did have doubts about the McCann's story. Now, however.... I'm unsure. I feel it is highly unlikely they killed her, I just don't see how someone could campaign so publicly if they knew they had killed their child.

What jumps out at me is that the whole investigation was pretty much a shambles. The portuguese police never had any conclusive evidence against the McCanns.

Kate was suspected of being guilty because she asked for a priest on the night Madeliene went missing!

I know that the book is obviously going to portray the McCann in a positive light, but until I see some concrete forensic evidence I don't think I can believe that they did it.

That's not to say I agree with some of their actions. Before I read the book I thought they had only left the children unattended on the night in question, but it was almost every night.

Also, Madeliene reportedly said why didn't you come when sean and I cried? Kate did not explore these claims further.

Seachmall

Kess73 wrote: »

And there were people who were supposedly qualified in body language and what not who had lots of experience helping police and who had their abilities praised by police who came out and said that in their view the McCanns were guilty.

This woman never studied body language. She was a random participant out of 20,000 and was one of 50 to be scientifically proven extremely accurate at various cues.

I am putting both sets in together because if either were capable of actually proving their claims the McCanns would have been found totally innocent or totally guilty by now.

They should be separate because they're self-claimed experts, she's a random woman with a scientifically proven rare ability.

Reading that blog does not make me think the McCanns are more innocent, just as reading the blogs of other experts did not make me think the McCanns were anymore guilty of something.

She doesn't try to convince people, she just gives her opinion.

Plenty of people on here said we should not judge the McCanns on how they act whilst in the media or on their personalities, so that same line should apply here with this blog as well.

True, and the blog gives disclaimers saying that any of her posts could be inaccurate. The science suggests most of them will be accurate but until facts come out this one could be wrong.

Because if people are going to say that this blog is some kind of proof that the McCanns are innocent because an "expert" says so, then it means that the claims of other body language "experts" who say the opposite about the McCanns become just as valid as a result.

Body language experts tend to be only slightly better than your average person at reading body language. She isn't a body language expert, she has an innate ability.

I have no idea if the McCanns are guilty or not. In my mind they could just as easily be innocent of anything to do with harming the child. The expert from the blog never met the McCanns and is basing everything from watching them in an interview on tv. So what was seen was what the cameras allowed to be seen or what a clever camera man or editor wanted to be seen.

True, like I said she has disclaimers. Facts are facts and these are just her opinions.

Can't stress the science part enough. Not some self-proclaimed expert. Not some mystic psychic. Just someone with a rare ability.

All of this is off-topic but objectively she is 100 times more credible than any body language "expert". Of course she could be wrong but it's an interesting read none-the-less.

Kess73

lizt wrote: »

I have read the book and it was a really interesting read. Before reading, I did have doubts about the McCann's story. Now, however.... I'm unsure. I feel it is highly unlikely they killed her, I just don't see how someone could campaign so publicly if they knew they had killed their child.

What jumps out at me is that the whole investigation was pretty much a shambles. The portuguese police never had any conclusive evidence against the McCanns.

Kate was suspected of being guilty because she asked for a priest on the night Madeliene went missing!I know that the book is obviously going to portray the McCann in a positive light, but until I see some concrete forensic evidence I don't think I can believe that they did it.

That's not to say I agree with some of their actions. Before I read the book I thought they had only left the children unattended on the night in question, but it was almost every night.

Also, Madeliene reportedly said why didn't you come when sean and I cried? Kate did not explore these claims further.

The same priest, Father Pacheco, who has come out and said that he felt deceived by Kate and her husband, and who the McCanns did not say goodbye to when they left Portugal and they did not even hand the keys of the church back to him instead giving it to another clery member to bring back to that church.

He has also commented that he will take what Kate told him to his grave as what was said to him was said in the act of confession.


And he also did not allow the McCanns to bring their camera crew to the church when they tried to do so in 2009, he went as far as to put up posters saying that no cameras would be allowed and made comment about the attempt to make a documentary being a circus.

Plus Kate would not go back into the church in 2009, Gerry had to go in on his own.


The priest's comments were made to the media and are easy to find online.


Now what he meant by his comment of how he felt deceived by them is open to interpretation, but his relationship with them changed very quickly as the deceived comment was made 4 or 5 months after the child went missing, and the circus comment was made in 2009.

Mountainsandh

Kess73 wrote: »

We only have the McCanns word on the police force there being corrupt and incompetent though. The fact that the Portugese police have a great track record in similar cases seems to be overlooked.
...
I guess the British police must be incompetent and corrupt as well as their investigation ended up echoing the opinion of the Portugese police.

.

Well as I said before in this thread, I have near personal (my husband) experience of corruption and incompetence of the Portugese police for other matters.

I think evidence of how the case was being so poorly handled was pretty obvious from day one : lack of proper police cordons, borders not closed, holiday makers and staff being let fly away home, dozens of leaks on important statements to the press ... and these are only the obvious things.

On the involvement of the British police, it is a similar situation to the Sophie Toscan Duplantier murder here, with a lot of tension and a delicate situation whereby the "foreign" police force cannot very well infringe on the home turf police force, no matter how aware they are of mistakes being made.

I'm sorry I don't really want to get involved in big debates on here, and I don't want to be analysing every bit of "evidence" and this and that. I don't know any more than any one on here.

Maybe the portugese police are top notch, and handled this perfectly, and I'm wrong. I do have a feeling though that if they had, we would know for sure one way or another by now, what happened to the little girl.

I don't believe the parents had anything to do with the crime, other than making the tragic and stupid mistake of leaving their kids in the flat alone that night. Just my opinion and feeling. I'm no detective.

K-9

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Maybe the portugese police are top notch, and handled this perfectly, and I'm wrong. I do have a feeling though that if they had, we would know for sure one way or another by now, what happened to the little girl.

I don't know what the statistics are in finding missing toddlers though, or their bodies, it could well have been a top notch investigation, the lack of finding her alive or a body doesn't really mean much.

Mickeroo

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Maybe the portugese police are top notch, and handled this perfectly, and I'm wrong. I do have a feeling though that if they had, we would know for sure one way or another by now, what happened to the little girl.

Whether the McGanns had anything to do with it its not for me to say but how many of these types of cases can you think of that have been solved? It's quite likely the police did everything in their power to conduct a proper investigation but they also just happen to be a pretty handy scapegoat for the media who like nothing more than scare mongering and promoting ridiculous misconceptions about society.

goat2

Kess73 wrote: »

Have to be honest and say that I would put that blog and supposed expert in with the other experts who popped up blogs about how they were 100% sure the McCanns were guilty.

i would like for them to explain to all, how they got it so wrong, when maddie is found, and her abductors are brought to justice

Mountainsandh

But that's the thing, nothing, absolutely nothing was found out. It's like the child vanished into thin air.
What are the chances of a top notch investigation yielding nothing, absolutely nothing ?

I was just looking at an American site for missing children which claimed that from a 62% recovery rate they had (with the help of the organisation that run the site) reached a 97 % rate of children found. I think it's "missingchildren.com" in the Success Stories section.