Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

dark crystal

Insp. Paiva states that a distraught Kate McCann called him in the early hours of the morning in July 2007. During this call, Kate McCann confessed that Madeleine’s remains could be found upon a hilltop in Praia da Luz. The call was made at a time when Gerry McCann was out of the country. Kate stated at some point during the conversation that she had dreamt that Madeleine had been murdered.

So Kate McCann 'confessed' did she?

Or perhaps the reason she was so distraught was because, as it states in an almost throwaway fashion towards the end of the paragraph, she had a dream that her daughter was on a hilltop somewhere in the vicinity.

There were no remains found, so either she just called him for sh!ts and giggles, or she felt the premonition was strong enough in her mind to at least try searching there, even if it was a long shot.


That's if any of this information is correct, of course. That quoted piece is quite clearly written by someone who seems convinced of the McCann's guilt....."narcissist husband"....."she grasped the opportunity to bring her sweet Madeleine home"......."Either way Kate McCann retains her weighty burden: one day she will have to relieve herself if she is to survive.

Kate, it is not too late, you can end all this now…today – just pick up the phone"

Ridiculous stuff, altogether.

efb

MOD EDIT: not funny.

AskMyChocolate

[QUOTE=Mountainsandh;72540813]@askmychocolate : ah but again, how ? how did they hamper the investigation in the first few hours ? (asking your chocolate)

Yes, they were like idiots in a panic, running around, being frantic and nonsensical, like anyone would be in that situation. That's not deliberately hampering anything. That's just being lost, un-savvy to what a police department might want or not in that situation.

Again from the book you won't believe unless you are willing to give K McC a chance, I gather that it's not the police force's questions they resented, but other people whose credentials they just couldn't fathom in their panicky state.

God, I should be a lawyer (NOT ! I hear you say ).

1) They "knew" the child had been abducted, yet allowed dozens of people to traipse all over the crime scene. Unbelievable behaviour in two Doctors who would have done pathology and forensic courses even if they didn't specialise in them. Not to insult K McCann's intelligence or anything.

2) G McCann claims to have tampered with the shutters even though he believed them to be the means by which the abductor escaped.

3) They tried to get their stories straight between themselves prior to being interviewed. This sort of "groupthink" is bound to undermine the 9 individual statements.

4) K McCann refused to answer the PJ's questions. (Not saying she was wrong but it definitely hampered the investigation.)

5) K McCann refused to supply samples of the twins' hair to ascertain whether they had been drugged.

6) All 9 deleted their phone records.

7) G McCann and David Payne are engaged in a "pact of silence". No idea what that's about.

8) They refused to submit their credit card records.

That's just off the top of my head. It's quite possible there is more.


Excuse me everyone, I'm now officially very silly, it's the tiredness and I need to go to bed, so I will now take my leave.[/QUOTE] .

Chicke

They really are incredible liars.and all the lies to protect themselves or make someone else wrong or guilty.The lie verbally and in the written word.they slander people without mercy.Interesting about the lies in the book about the polices initial response
I haven't bought the book but I hope it's not one long story of self justification and lies without discrimination.if this is the case,surely this will make Scotland yard highly suspicious
I was in Easons one day and opened one page where she mentioned about the smith family supporting the tanner testimony of someone carrying a little child.thus would of course reinforce the abduction theory
Of course ,as we know,the direction that the smith family saw the man with the child going was opposite to the one Tanner.So it actually contradicted the Tanner statement despite what she said in the book
Not to mention of course the smiths made a statement saying they thought the person with the child in arms was gmcann
More lies.what a tangled web we weave ....

sunflower27

Chicke wrote: »

They really are incredible liars.and all the lies to protect themselves or make someone else wrong or guilty.The lie verbally and in the written word.they slander people without mercy.Interesting about the lies in the book about the polices initial response
I haven't bought the book but I hope it's not one long story of self justification and lies without discrimination.if this is the case,surely this will make Scotland yard highly suspicious
I was in Easons one day and opened one page where she mentioned about the smith family supporting the tanner testimony of someone carrying a little child.thus would of course reinforce the abduction theory
Of course ,as we know,the direction that the smith family saw the man with the child going was opposite to the one Tanner.So it actually contradicted the Tanner statement despite what she said in the book
Not to mention of course the smiths made a statement saying they thought the person with the child in arms was gmcann
More lies.what a tangled web we weave ....

Yes, totally agree. Total fcuking lies is right. There is no way in hell I'd read their drivel that aims to shift blame and neglect to anyone but themselves. As for actually paying for it :pac::pac::pac::pac:

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/kate-mccanns-near-confession/

Since we only have the word of the Inspector and a clearly anti-McCann author I'll be taking this one with a pinch of salt.

Mistyeyes321

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Since we only have the word of the Inspector and a clearly anti-McCann author I'll be taking this one with a pinch of salt.

That's fair enough & that's your Perogative! However this comment clearly states what I have been trying to say...Why do any of us have to take one side or another?!
I don't think the pj is the Devil nor do I think the mcs are!
Both imho have made mistakes & while both are infighting no one is looking for this Child! Very sad..

iamwhoiam

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

That's fair enough & that's your Perogative! However this comment clearly states what I have been trying to say...Why do any of us have to take one side or another?!
I don't think the pj is the Devil nor do I think the mcs are!
Both imho have made mistakes & while both are infighting no one is looking for this Child! Very sad..

Now that I agree with .Both made mistakes and the victim in it all is Madeleine who paid the ultimate price for adults mistakes .Thats I find so very very sad .

Chicke

Has anyone read the book.Is it a story of fault finding,lies and self justification?Does it read like the council for the defense?
Or does it bring to centre stage and full colour the beauty lost of tragic Madeline. or is it all about the parents?
This story makes me so sad

Mistyeyes321

Chicke wrote: »

Has anyone read the book.Is it a story of fault finding,lies and self justification?Does it read like the council for the defense?
Or does it bring to centre stage and full colour the beauty lost of tragic Madeline. or is it all about the parents?
This story makes me so sad

I can't help you with this Chicke I haven't bought the book I have only seen little snippet's which some poster's have been kind enough to show us....I haven't bought the Detectives Book either. I have been reading some statement's on a link that was put on this thread & I have found them quite interesting! I think i'm behind most people on here regarding most of the Fact's..:)

AudreyHepburn

Chicke wrote: »

Has anyone read the book.Is it a story of fault finding,lies and self justification?Does it read like the council for the defense?
Or does it bring to centre stage and full colour the beauty lost of tragic Madeline. or is it all about the parents?
This story makes me so sad

I'm reading the book at the moment but I would be wary of getting into a discussion about it because there are certain people who will refuse to see to see it as anything but a work of fiction or lies and I don't want to start an argument.

I'll just say I am enjoying it and I would hope more people will read it.

AudreyHepburn

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

That's fair enough & that's your Perogative! However this comment clearly states what I have been trying to say...Why do any of us have to take one side or another?!
I don't think the pj is the Devil nor do I think the mcs are!
Both imho have made mistakes & while both are infighting no one is looking for this Child! Very sad..

Please don't misunderstand, I am not totally dismissing it. I just feel I would need to hear it from Kate herself or hear a recording of the call to be sure it's the truth. But I don't deny it could be.

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm reading the book at the moment but I would be wary of getting into a discussion about it because there are certain people who will refuse to see to see it as anything but a work of fiction or lies and I don't want to start an argument.

I'll just say I am enjoying it and I would hope more people will read it.

It's just one persons account of what happened. So the same as you disregard a link given a few posts back as being unreliable, I would be inclined to think that I would not believe everything that Kate McCann says, just because it is in a book.

I just get the impression from people that are reading the book, that they are taking evidence that may be presented, which doesn't favour the McCanns, and brushing it off by saying "Well, that's not true, because Kate says so in her book".

Just because it is in a book, doesn't mean it is true. It's just an extension of the already very questionable things they have said.

I must stress, I'm not directing that at you. I was actually reading some of the comments on their website, from people who had read the book. They seem to take it as gospel.

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

It's just one persons account of what happened. So the same as you disregard a link given a few posts back as being unreliable, I would be inclined to think that I would not believe everything that Kate McCann says, just because it is in a book.

I just get the impression from people that are reading the book, that they are taking evidence that may be presented, which doesn't favour the McCanns, and brushing it off by saying "Well, that's not true, because Kate says so in her book".

Just because it is in a book, doesn't mean it is true. It's just an extension of the already very questionable things they have said.

I must stress, I'm not directing that at you. I was actually reading some of the comments on their website, from people who had read the book. They seem to take it as gospel.

In fairness I never said I take it as gospel or that I regard everything as true just because Kate said it (that would be as bad those who take Goncalo Amaral's book as gospel) but I also am not going to disregard it just because shows only point of view.

As I said I don't really want to get into too much discussion because it will only start an argument.

Nodin

This is turning into a "Kennedy assasination" style phenomena....

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In fairness I never said I take it as gospel or that I regard everything as true just because Kate said it (that would be as bad those who take Goncalo Amaral's book as gospel) but I also am not going to disregard it just because shows only point of view.

As I said I don't really want to get into too much discussion because it will only start an argument.

Just to point out, I did explicitly say that I wasn't referring to you when I wrote that.

elviscostello wrote: »

I must stress, I'm not directing that at you. I was actually reading some of the comments on their website, from people who had read the book. They seem to take it as gospel.

But that's fair enough, if you don't want to give any idea of what way the book sways.

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

Just to point out, I did explicitly say that I wasn't referring to you when I wrote that.



But that's fair enough, if you don't want to give any idea of what way the book sways.

Well I think it's probably fairly obvious the direction the book takes.

I meant I would rather not get into my own opinions on whether I agree with Kate or not because to judge from some posters attitudes towards the McCanns it would only end up in an argument.

I will say I am enjoying the book though.

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well I think it's probably fairly obvious the direction the book takes.

It's a bit like the Titanic movie in that sense.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I meant I would rather not get into my own opinions on whether I agree with Kate or not because to judge from some posters attitudes towards the McCanns it would only end up in an argument.

I will say I am enjoying the book though.

I meant more about the questions Chicke asked. Like do they admit any responsibility, blame police, mention anything about why it would be so ridiculous for them to be suspects and that sort of thing. Rather than your opinion on it. Although its fairly normal that everyone would not agree on opinions. It'd be a fairly boring world if we did.

Chicke wrote: »

Has anyone read the book.Is it a story of fault finding,lies and self justification?Does it read like the council for the defense?
Or does it bring to centre stage and full colour the beauty lost of tragic Madeline. or is it all about the parents?
This story makes me so sad

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

It's a bit like the Titanic movie in that sense.



I meant more about the questions Chicke asked. Like do they admit any responsibility, blame police, mention anything about why it would be so ridiculous for them to be suspects and that sort of thing. Rather than your opinion on it. Although its fairly normal that everyone would not agree on opinions. It'd be a fairly boring world if we did.

Well they certainly don't say they killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise. Kate does repeat several times that they regret totally leaving the babies alone as they did, and she says they will continue to regret it for the rest of their lives.

She doesn't mention anything about it being ridiculous them being suspects insofar as I've read. She does say the whole thing was traumatic for them.

In relation to the jogging, which was something else they were critiqued on, Kate says she used as a form of self punishment. She pushed herself as hard as she could and past it because if Madeleine was suffering she felt she should too.

Also that comment re Madeleine's private parts, Kate says that was just one many horrible thoughts she had about what could have been happened to Madeleine. She was embarresed about it but she couldn't help thinking it.

TheZohanS

SECTION C. Strange things the McCanns have said and done

35. The McCanns ignored police advice not to publicise Madeleine’s distinctive mark in her right eye, a ‘coloboma’. They said that if she was with an abductor, it could place her life in danger. On 15 July 2009, Gerry McCann said: “We thought it was possible that publicising her coloboma could harm Madeleine. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy”.

36. Kate McCann, in 2007, said: “I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances”.

37. On 3 June 2007, Gerry McCann said: “We want a big event to raise awareness she is still missing…It won’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that”. On 28 June, he said: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

38. On 11 December 2009, Gerry McCann said: “There is no evidence that we were involved in Madeleine’s death”. The previous year, the McCanns’ spokesman said: “Can I suggest you actually quote me accurately. I said: ‘I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine’s death’.”

39. On 24 August 2007, Gerry McCann, in a Scottish TV interview, said: “In fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not”.

40. Asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted, Dr Gerald McCann said: ‘It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.

41. Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said in September 2007: “There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found”.

42. Unlike most couples who lose a dear child, they did not cling to their other two children. Others cared for them while they flew round the world to meet the Pope, visit the U.S. and do TV interviews.

43. As with all of us, the McCanns’ body language may yield valuable clues. During TV interviews, the following conduct has been observed: avoiding eye contact, nervous twitching, tense facial expressions, shaking their heads while making various assertions, and touching or scratching their faces at difficult moments. They were seen smiling and laughing on what would have been Madeleine’s 4th birthday, just 10 days after she went missing. Many people say they have not seen evidence of the grief that couples would normally express if they had lost a much-loved daughter.

Wow, just wow....

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In relation to the jogging, which was something else they were critiqued on, Kate says she used as a form of self punishment. She pushed herself as hard as she could and past it because if Madeleine was suffering she felt she should too.

They didn't mention anything about self-punishment while blogging their jogging times at the time. They just described her as being a keen runner.

Gerrys Blog - Day 17 wrote:

Kate is a keen runner and in the last few days has tried to include a run in the

daily routine. Yesterday (Sat) at 7am we ran to the monument at the top of the steep cliff overlooking Praia de

Luz. We reached it in 19 minutes.

That whole blog post gives me the creeps. Just my own observation, they only mention Madeleine once in the whole "Day in the life" post, written 17 days after she went missing. That doesn't seem right.

Gerrys Blog - Day 17 wrote:

A Day to day life for the McCann's
Our day starts around 6.30am with us all waking up around the same time. We have breakfast with Sean and Amelie and our close family/friends who are here with us. Then its clean nappies and clothes for Sean and Amelie followed by showers etc for the rest of us.

Usually there’s some free time then for a few stories or games with the twins before heading out.



KIDS CLUB



9.00-9.15 We take Sean and Amelie to Kids’ Club. They really enjoy it and run in.

They know the staff well and the staff are all excellent. Both love the domestic corner and Amelie particularly likes to look after ‘babies’. We use the kids club a bit like nursery at home but we think Sean and Amelie still think they are on holiday!

9.30~12.15. We return to the apartments, usually for a series of meetings with our press officer, Mark Warner Reps, occasionally Consulate staff, lawyers and British Liaison officers. During this time we catch up with family and close friends, usually by telephone and discuss ideas how to keep Madeleine’s profile high especially throughout continental Europe.

12.30 Time to pick up Sean and Amelie from Kids’ club then head back to apartment for lunch, which has usually been prepared by one of our family/friends group who have been tremendously supportive.

13.30 –14.30 This is time to spend time playing with the twins either in the apartment or in the play area next to kids club.

14.30-15.00 Usually we take the twins back to Kids’ Club although Sean has had the odd afternoon in the apartment as it’s a bit cooler and he’s not much of a sun worshipper! They have been taking part in many different activities including painting, singing, stories, swimming, trips to the beach and they have lots of toys to play with.

15.00~17.00 We try to get some time together alone, going for a walk to talk things over or getting some exercise. This is often the time for quiet trips to the church for prayers.



Pasta & Vegetables


17.00-17.30 Meet kids for high tea with other mums and dads. They love pasta and have been doing really well with their vegetables although a few chips have been squeezed in.

17.30-18.30. Games with kids at play area. Amelie loves trying to get in the baby pool!

18.30-19.30 Bath and story time with the twins.

20.00 We put the kids to bed.

20.30-23.00 We try to sit down for a family meal, again usually cooked by one of the small family group out here with us. Chat about the day’s events and plan the next day

23.30 bed and prayer for Madeleine that she will be returned to us safely

RUNNING



ASAP.

In addition to above we try to attend various church services

during the week, and make multiple phone calls to family and

friends. We try to watch the main news

early morning and late evening but have had almost no time

to read

the newspapers or even look at the pictures!

Kate is a keen runner and in the last few days has tried to include a run in the

daily routine. Yesterday (Sat) at 7am we ran to the monument at the top of the steep cliff overlooking Praia de Luz. We reached it in 19 minutes.

Link

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well they certainly don't say they killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise. Kate does repeat several times that they regret totally leaving the babies alone as they did, and she says they will continue to regret it for the rest of their lives.

She doesn't mention anything about it being ridiculous them being suspects insofar as I've read. She does say the whole thing was traumatic for them.

In relation to the jogging, which was something else they were critiqued on, Kate says she used as a form of self punishment. She pushed herself as hard as she could and past it because if Madeleine was suffering she felt she should too.


Also that comment re Madeleine's private parts, Kate says that was just one many horrible thoughts she had about what could have been happened to Madeleine. She was embarresed about it but she couldn't help thinking it.

Does she say that in the book?

Bit of a jump from the two people who were putting up their run times in their blogs and also saying that the jogging was to help clear the mind and have time to think.

Also people who are recording their running times/distances and putting them up for others to read are methodical and target focussed, and not running in the way that a person might if the running is purely to cause pain.

The times and distances logged in their blogs do not suggest any great speed or distance for even a semi fit person, let alone a person running themselves into the ground to hurt themselves.

They were regular joggers before the incident and their blog details suggest that their running schedules and logging patterns did not change.

I say this as a regular marathon runner who also runs on a semi competitve basis.

Now it does not point at them as being guilty for doing something to their daughter, it does not even come close to that imho, but if Kate McCann said what you mentioned in your book, then it just points to something being changed to suit their own agenda on how they get perceived.

Bit like how they claimed at the start that the shutters showed definite signs of being forced from the outside and that the shutters had the marks/damage to back that up, to it being a story of how the shutters were opened from the inside when it was proven that the shutters had not been foreced and had no marks or signs of damage at all.

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

They didn't mention anything about self-punishment while blogging their jogging times at the time. They just described her as being a keen runner.

I'll find the quote for you.

Kess73 wrote: »

Does she say that in the book?

She certainly does. As above I'll get the quote.

Edit: Ok here it is. She also mentions other reasons why she did. It is at the start of Chapter 9, Page 132, No Stone Unturned;

Excercise, and running in particular, is good for the mind as well as the body. It can induce a sense of wellbeing, lifting your mood and aids the relief of stress, anxiety and sleeplessness. I needed all the help I could get there.....I suppose I made myself do it the same mechanical way as I made myself wash my face in the morning

A little further down Kate says

I knew running would help numb the torment, albeit temporarily. Even more bizzarely I felt I needed to do it to bring Madeleine back. I can see now that this makes no sense but at the time it was as if I had to push myself to my limits to achieve my hearts desire. My child had suffered and therefore so must I

Take these quotes as you see fit.

Chicke

That is an extremely weird detached blog for a grieving father I think.he comes across almost chirpy.weird.and why would we want to know the details?i haven't a clue now ,but it's like as if he liked the attention that he was receiving.it isn't about you gerry,it's about a little girl ,you're girl.

AudreyHepburn

Chicke wrote: »

That is an extremely weird detached blog for a grieving father I think.he comes across almost chirpy.weird.and why would we want to know the details?i haven't a clue now ,but it's like as if he liked the attention that he was receiving.it isn't about you gerry,it's about a little girl ,you're girl.

To be fair he reacted by breaking down totally he'd probably be accused of overdoing it or looking for attention too.

maebee

I just cannot get my head around them jogging while the locals took time off work to search for their daughter. Kate McCann admitted to the BBC's Jane Hill that they didn't physically search for Madeleine. Incredible.

sunflower27

Chicke wrote: »

That is an extremely weird detached blog for a grieving father I think.he comes across almost chirpy.weird.and why would we want to know the details?i haven't a clue now ,but it's like as if he liked the attention that he was receiving.it isn't about you gerry,it's about a little girl ,you're girl.

Who was the blog actually for?

I cannot believe that any loving parent that thought their daughter had been abducted and was scared, possibly being abused, would have time to do anything but focus on anything that could help bring their little girl back to them.

It just adds to my belief that he knew she would not be coming back, had compartmentalised what happened for self preservation and was getting on with 'moving on'.

Obviously just my interpretation.

Absolutely astounding he even kept up his stupid blog.

iamwhoiam

maebee wrote: »

I just cannot get my head around them jogging while the locals took time off work to search for their daughter. Kate McCann admitted to the BBC's Jane Hill that they didn't physically search for Madeleine. Incredible.

Apparently many locals shut up shops and business and went out physically searching . My head wont take in that the Mc Canns didnt . I know we are all differnt and I know we all react differently but I think most mother would be digging till her nails fell off .I know I would .

Stella89

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well I think it's probably fairly obvious the direction the book takes.

I meant I would rather not get into my own opinions on whether I agree with Kate or not because to judge from some posters attitudes towards the McCanns it would only end up in an argument.

I will say I am enjoying the book though.

I bet Kate and Team McCann were a bit shy in answering those famous Police questions in the book , right ?



The 48 questions that Kate did not answer

1 On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?

2 Did you search in the couple's bedroom closet? (said she would not reply)

3 (Two photographs of her bedroom's closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?

4 Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?

5 How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?

6 Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?

7 Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.

8 Why didn't you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn't you ask them at a later point in time?

9 When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?

10 What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?

11 Why did you go to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?

12 Who contacted the authorities?

13 Who participated in the searches?

14 Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie's disappearance during the following minutes?

15 Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16 What does the expression "we let her down" mean?

17 Did Jane mention to you that she had seen a man with a child that night?

18 How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?

19 During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?

20 Why didn't the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?

21 Who did you call after the facts?

22 Did you call SKY News?

23 Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?

24 Did you request the presence of a priest?

25 How was Madeleine's face publicised, with a photograph, or other media?

26 Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie's bed without moving?

27 How did you behave that evening?

28 Did you manage to sleep?

29 Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?

30 What was Madeleine's behaviour?

31 Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?

32 What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?

33 What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?

34 Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?

35 What is your medical specialty?

36 Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?

37 Did you work on a daily basis?

38 Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?

39 Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?

40 Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children's attitude and that left you upset?

41 Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine's guardianship to a relative?

42 In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?

43 Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualisation, and after cadaver odour was signalled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?

44 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog?

45 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?

46 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?

47 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie's DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle's boot?

48 Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?

Mistyeyes321

Amasing where some of the link's lead you too that have been posted on this thread! I've just read a Snippet of the book the detective from Portugal...No i'm not clever enough to read it in portugese it's all there translated into english:eek:.
I've only read bit's but noticed straight away politic's have been brought into it...I might be misreading it though I admit:o...But so far Blair has been Mentioned along with Brown! Maybe this is standard procedure?! he seem's to be saying that PJ had alot of interference from the British Goverment from the start & added to the Case being shelved! Now like I said I could be reading this all wrong! So Please don't all Shout at once if i'm reading this wrong:P

If however i'm not then what right did the British Police have interfering because I couldn't see anyother Police force being allowed to interfere with a Case in the uk??