Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Stella89

Not only that, this case was gaining so much world media attention , that it was actually affecting the tourism of Portugal ( Specifically that tourist hotspot region of Portugal ) . Team McCann painted a picture of the Portugese police force being bumbling amateurs unwilling to search for their "missing daughter", even though thousands of that police force and tens of thousands of ordinary portugese people spent months looking for her ! , The police followed every line of investigation ( Which obviously would have strecthed their resources to the limit!) , This is before they became Arquidos . In some corners of the media, Portugal was being portrayed as an usafe place to bring children .

maebee

"If that situation had been of an abduction, it would have been terrible for the child. Because if that child were to be sold, or something else... She was as good as... it was her death sentence. That situation, that day, advertising that photo, was simply the death sentence of that child."

Carlos Anjos, President of the PJ's Union ASFIC in : 'Prós e Contras', RTP1, September 10, 2007

It is very difficult to understand why the McCanns ignored the advice of the police not to advertise Madeleine's eye defect but as Gerry McCann said "It was a good marketing ploy"

Donkey Oaty

Those tags have got better since I was last here...

ISDW

Stella89 wrote: »

Not only that, this case was gaining so much world media attention , that it was actually affecting the tourism of Portugal ( Specifically that tourist hotspot region of Portugal ) . Team McCann painted a picture of the Portugese police force being bumbling amateurs unwilling to search for their "missing daughter", even though thousands of that police force and tens of thousands of ordinary portugese people spent months looking for her ! , The police followed every line of investigation ( Which obviously would have strecthed their resources to the limit!) , This is before they became Arquidos . In some corners of the media, Portugal was being portrayed as an usafe place to bring children .

But theres different ways to look at things. If Portugal was worried about its tourism industry suffering, then what better way to get the tourists back than by making the English parents the culprits. I think its come up in this thread (on page 2,254 maybe:p) that there had been some attacks on children in that area around the time Madeleine disappeared - I think it was local Portugese children, I don't think they were abducted if I recall, but an intruder got into their houses/bedrooms. Or did I imagine that information on here?

So, I think it is very subjective.

Mistyeyes321

:eek:41 Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine's guardianship to a relative? :eek: Never heard this before?!
I have holidayed in Portuguese along with many european countries & can honestly say the Portegese people we're lovely! One of my sister's live there mainly full time now...You get pedophiles all over the world not just in portugal so let's be fair here!
Just wanted to add it's the same as all Portugese people thinking all British people leave their children alone at night...But we don't infact I don't know one person who uses this method of Child care fact!

Donkey Oaty

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

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

This is an Irish message board, Misty!

Mistyeyes321

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

This is an Irish message board, Misty!

Sorry?! Whatever do you mean? if you are refering to the England bit I copied & pasted that from the 48 question's!

ISDW

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

:eek:41 Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine's guardianship to a relative? :eek: Never heard this before?!
I have holidayed in Portugal along with many european countries & can honestly say the Portegese people we're lovely! One of my sister's live there mainly full time now...You get pedophiles all over the world not just in portugal so let's be fair here!
Just wanted to add it's the same as all Portegese people thinking all British people leave their children alone at night...But we don't infact I don't know one person who uses this method of Child care fact!

Who are these Portegese people of whom you speak? Do you mean Portuguese?

Aw now, your last sentence may not be true, nobody has ever admitted to you that they do this, doesn't actually mean they don't, or haven't, fact!

Until Donkey Oaty posted about this being an Irish board, I didn't realise you were British, just had a quick look on your profile. Of the 57 posts you've made on boards.ie, only 2 haven't been on this thread. It would appear that you have a bit of a vested interest in this topic, did you join boards.ie just because of this thread? Nothing wrong with that if you did, just I find it interesting.

TommyTippee

I'm new here, but have been following this thread with interest.

It saddens me to say, but having read the multitude of information about this case, both here and all the police evidence, the most logical conclusion in my mind as to what happened is that Gerry McCann found Madeline dead in the apartment, through an accident of some description - possibly from climbing onto the sofa upon hearing her daddy talking at the window and falling down.

Whether Kate McCann was informed, I don't know...I have an inkling that she may not know and I don't blame Gerry McCann for this.

I would suspect that Gerry carried Madeline down to the beach and hid her temporarily there and tried to continue on the night, putting the abductor theory out there when Madeline was going to be discovered to be missing.

Judging by their actions to inform their relatives in the UK, the media and the UK police, they were covering their tracks, as the normal reaction would be to search the entire area immediately. I know this from going missing as a 4 year old and my Mother's reactions.

This charade has then continued to this day.

I think they are suffering from what they, or just Gerry, did and in some ways I can understand.

Their lives and their childrens' lives would have been destroyed had they been jailed for negligence. I can easily see that they could have thought that what's done is done, Madeline is not coming back and they must make the best for the twins.

It is understandable and who knows how we would react having been in the situation.

While I will always be curious to what happened, I try and let it go now. I don't think they are bad people, I think they have made a terrible mistake in leaving their children alone and have paid a terrible price for it.

Mistyeyes321

ISDW wrote: »

Who are these Portegese people of whom you speak? Do you mean Portuguese?

Aw now, your last sentence may not be true, nobody has ever admitted to you that they do this, doesn't actually mean they don't, or haven't, fact!

Until Donkey Oaty posted about this being an Irish board, I didn't realise you were British, just had a quick look on your profile. Of the 57 posts you've made on boards.ie, only 2 haven't been on this thread. It would appear that you have a bit of a vested interest in this topic, did you join boards.ie just because of this thread? Nothing wrong with that if you did, just I find it interesting.

Pointing out a spelling mistake say's for more about you than it ever will about me! I'm also Partially sighted which...

I don't know one parent who uses this method of Child care Fact...Is that better?:)

Yes I do find this Case facinating & no I didn't join Board's for this purpose!

Donkey Oaty

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Sorry?! Whatever do you mean? if you are refering to the England bit I copied & pasted that from the 48 question's!

So you did - mea culpa!

Apologies.

ISDW

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Pointing out a spelling mistake say's for more about you than it ever will about me! I'm also Partially sighted which...

I don't know one parent who uses this method of Child care Fact...Is that better?:)

Yes I do find this Case facinating & no I didn't join Board's for this purpose!

Whats with the aggression?

No, the fact that you extol the virtues of a nation that you can't even be bothered to find out how to spell actually says a lot about you and your real level of respect for them.

My point still stands, we only know what people want us to know about what goes on behind closed doors, until something goes wrong.

Don't believe ya, too much of a coincidence.:D

Mistyeyes321

ISDW wrote: »

Whats with the aggression?

What aggression?

No, the fact that you extol the virtues of a nation that you can't even be bothered to find out how to spell actually says a lot about you and your real level of respect for them.

Really ok well like myself your entitled to your opinion!

My point still stands, we only know what people want us to know about what goes on behind closed doors, until something goes wrong.
Maybe!
Don't believe ya, too much of a coincidence.:D

And?:pac:

Stella89

ISDW wrote: »

But theres different ways to look at things. If Portugal was worried about its tourism industry suffering, then what better way to get the tourists back than by making the English parents the culprits. I think its come up in this thread (on page 2,254 maybe:p) that there had been some attacks on children in that area around the time Madeleine disappeared - I think it was local Portugese children, I don't think they were abducted if I recall, but an intruder got into their houses/bedrooms. Or did I imagine that information on here?

So, I think it is very subjective.

Do you reckon that this case had no dramatic effect on tourism in that region of portugal ?

Stella89

I think the late late show interview with the McCanns is very revealing for those that saw it , it will not be up for much longer on rteplayer but it is worth viewing for the jaw droping utterances coming from their mouths , thinking they can dupe the public of facts! just because it is fours years later !



1.
The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they soon changed their story, saying they must have left the patio doors open.
The window had been cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-madeleine-foundations-50-facts-leaflet/




RTE PLAYER http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1098327

Watch from 136 minutes, Kate mcann says that "the window was open and the curtains were blowing in the wind, the shutters were wind open, the shutters were up and the window was pushed right across, and I just knew... ..." , ( notice the way Kate mentions she whizzes around the house for 10 or 15 seconds and checks cupboard even though she " knew she was taken") See police question number two
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/48-Questions-Kate-McCann-Faced-from-Portugese-Police/Article/200808115070874

1`37'
Gerry says " It was just as kate described, you could open the shutter from the outside"

Tubridy " You could open the shutter from the outside ....?

Gerry "Yeah , you could ..."
Somewhere else in the interview ,Tubridy asks a very loaded question, which Gerry ignores and just answers with "read the book!"





Why are they not being forthcoming and telling the truth 4 Years later !? Do they think people won't be botherd to verify what they say ?

TommyTippee

Stella89 wrote: »

Why are they not being forthcoming and telling the truth 4 Years later !? Do they think people won't be botherd to verify what they say ?

The more time goes on, the more contradictions there will be.

But they won't tell the truth because they will be jailed, the twins will be taken into care and Madeline will still be dead.

Sometimes the truth is better left unsaid.

Stella89

TommyTippee wrote: »

The more time goes on, the more contradictions there will be.

But they won't tell the truth because they will be jailed, the twins will be taken into care and Madeline will still be dead.

Sometimes the truth is better left unsaid.

I don't think they will ever be jailed, I think they have been given infinite diplomatic immunity. It makes my skin crawl to think that for the rest of their lives they will be "searching for Madeline" , blaming everyone rather than themselves .

Stella89

"Were you surprised when you were made arguidos?


Gerry – In a way, we would like to have been accused so we could defend ourselves openly. Now, reading the process, there is no evidence that justifies the suspicion, apart from the dogs' action. There was never a sustained explanation. And the questioning: 'What happened to Madeleine? How did you get rid of her? Who helped you? Where did you put her?' All fantasy! If they had found DNA – so what? And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?



Gerry McCann, to Expresso, on 07.09.2007

AskMyChocolate

ISDW wrote: »

Who are these Portegese people of whom you speak? Do you mean Portuguese?

Aw now, your last sentence may not be true, nobody has ever admitted to you that they do this, doesn't actually mean they don't, or haven't, fact!

Until Donkey Oaty posted about this being an Irish board, I didn't realise you were British, just had a quick look on your profile. Of the 57 posts you've made on boards.ie, only 2 haven't been on this thread. It would appear that you have a bit of a vested interest in this topic, did you join boards.ie just because of this thread? Nothing wrong with that if you did, just I find it interesting.

`

If you're down to using spelling to try to diminish and undermine the validity of a person's argument, or insidiously trying to show, that they are too uneducated to form an opinion ISDW then you've already lost the argument.

Btw, I've already been accused on this thread of being a McCann "apologist", by the McCann "haters".

I've also been accused of being a McCann "hater", by the McCann "apologisists".

I'd like to think that I can be as impartial and as sceptical as Kess73.

And, btw, there are 5 McCanns. I know which three are definitely innocent.

Choco

lugha

maebee wrote: »

It is very difficult to understand why the McCanns ignored the advice of the police not to advertise Madeleine's eye defect but as Gerry McCann said "It was a good marketing ploy"

The kind of implied reasoning you use here (i.e. The McCann’s behaviour was peculiar, therefore they must have been involved) is being done over and over again on this thread.

Yes, it is strange that they would ignore the advice of the police, if they had no involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. But it would also be strange (more so IMO) if they were somehow involved. If they knew M. was not going to be found, why would they bother to overrule the police?

The same thinking was applied when Kate said they have taken her. Yes a peculiar think to say if she was involved. But even more peculiar if she was not. And ditto with a lot of what the McCanns said and did. Peculiar carry on, but little which is more indicative of them being involved than not involved. All you can conclude from all of these anecdotes and titbits is that the McCanns appear to be something of an odd couple, not that they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

If you are going to cite something like this as “evidence” then you logically need to make the argument that such strange behaviour is more indicative of them being guilty than not. For example, if you argue that it is most surprising that innocent parents would not physically search for their missing child, you need to also ask if it would be even more surprising if parents involved in their child’s disappearance would not help in the search? And IMO, it would be far more surprising. You would be acutely aware that such behaviour would be perceived to be suspicious and would almost certainly partake in a phoney search to deflect such suspicion.

If you reason through all of the “evidence” in this way , then very little of it amounts to anything. Apart from the dog evidence, which admittedly is strong, I’m not that there is very much else of substance.

AskMyChocolate

lugha wrote: »

The kind of implied reasoning you use here (i.e. The McCann’s behaviour was peculiar, therefore they must have been involved) is being done over and over again on this thread.

Yes, it is strange that they would ignore the advice of the police, if they had no involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. But it would also be strange (more so IMO) if they were somehow involved. If they knew M. was not going to be found, why would they bother to overrule the police?

The same thinking was applied when Kate said they have taken her. Yes a peculiar think to say if she was involved. But even more peculiar if she was not. And ditto with a lot of what the McCanns said and did. Peculiar carry on, but little which is more indicative of them being involved than not involved. All you can conclude from all of these anecdotes and titbits is that the McCanns appear to be something of an odd couple, not that they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

If you are going to cite something like this as “evidence” then you logically need to make the argument that such strange behaviour is more indicative of them being guilty than not. For example, if you argue that it is most surprising that innocent parents would not physically search for their missing child, you need to also ask if it would be even more surprising if parents involved in their child’s disappearance would not help in the search? And IMO, it would be far more surprising. You would be acutely aware that such behaviour would be perceived to be suspicious and would almost certainly partake in a phoney search to deflect such suspicion.

If you reason through all of the “evidence” in this way , then very little of it amounts to anything. Apart from the dog evidence, which admittedly is strong, I’m not that there is very much else of substance.

Excellent post. I would agree with it in an awful lot of ways. But if your child was missing, would you not risk being framed, (a ludicrous fear in my estimation), and answer the police's questions, if it would help them to proceed with their invesdtiations?

After all, it's hardly likely that they were going to be victims of injustice. They had (have) a lot of high powered mates.

AudreyHepburn

Stella89 wrote: »

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?

Well I haven't got that far yet, I've just reached the chapter where they meet the PJ for the first time.

But in all fairness it has been explained over and over again why the McCanns didn't answers ie as Arguidos it would have part of their status not to have to answer and by answering they may well have implicated themselves causing the investigation to focus in the wrong direction etc.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

All you can conclude from all of these anecdotes and titbits is that the McCanns appear to be something of an odd couple, not that they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine..

The whole lot together forms an awful lot of circumstantial evidence. There is no 'smoking gun' granted, but there's plenty to suggest there is something more going on that just the McCanns being an 'odd couple'. Odd is fine. Odd doesn't lead to the list of inconsistencies and other issues with the case. Occam's Razor tbh.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

.... by answering they may well have implicated themselves causing the investigation to focus in the wrong direction etc.

This doesn't hold any water tbh. All sensible legal advice is to the contrary when dealing with an investigation when you have nothing to hide.

lugha

prinz wrote: »

The whole lot together forms an awful lot of circumstantial evidence.

No it doesn't. You are trying to add up a whole lot of nothings and get something. For any of these oddities to amount to evidence you need to make the argument that such behavior is more like what you would expect from a guilty party rather than an innocent one. If you cannot do that then that evidence amounts to nothing.

prinz wrote: »

All sensible legal advice is to the contrary when dealing with an investigation when you have nothing to hide.

Not so. The right to silence, contrary to almost universal opinion, is to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

No it doesn't. You are trying to add up a whole lot of nothings and get something. For any of these oddities to amount to evidence you need to make the argument that such behavior is more like what you would expect from a guilty party rather than an innocent one. If you cannot do that then that evidence amounts to nothing..

The evidence does point towards actions and words I'd expect from a guilty party rather than an innocent one. That's the whole point.

lugha wrote: »

Not so. The right to silence, contrary to almost universal opinion, is to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

The right to remain silent is not the same thing as advising people to be uncooperative with police investigations as a default position.

AskMyChocolate

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well I haven't got that far yet, I've just reached the chapter where they meet the PJ for the first time.

But in all fairness it has been explained over and over again why the McCanns didn't answers ie as Arguidos it would have part of their status not to have to answer and by answering they may well have implicated themselves causing the investigation to focus in the wrong direction etc.

I can totally understand that reasoning Audrey, but do you honestly think that they had to wipe their phones and refuse to provide their credit card statements?

Do you think that Visa and Vodafone are "McCann haters" too? Along with the entire Portuguese and British police services?

Seems a little farfetched to me.

lugha

prinz wrote: »

The evidence does point towards actions and words I'd expect from a guilty party rather than an innocent one. That's the whole point.

Ok. Can you make an argument why you might expect someone who was involved in the disappearance of their daughter not to take part in the search? Surely their fear of getting caught would urge them to take part to avert suspicion?
And similarly with all the other oddities. Much of what is being cited here does not particularly point to guilt or innocent but to oddity. And those citing these oddities are not making any argument to the contrary.

prinz wrote: »

The right to remain silent is not the same thing as advising people to be uncooperative with police investigations as a default position.

Did they refuse to cooperate before they were made suspects?

AskMyChocolate

TommyTippee wrote: »

I'm new here, but have been following this thread with interest.

It saddens me to say, but having read the multitude of information about this case, both here and all the police evidence, the most logical conclusion in my mind as to what happened is that Gerry McCann found Madeline dead in the apartment, through an accident of some description - possibly from climbing onto the sofa upon hearing her daddy talking at the window and falling down.

Whether Kate McCann was informed, I don't know...I have an inkling that she may not know and I don't blame Gerry McCann for this.

I would suspect that Gerry carried Madeline down to the beach and hid her temporarily there and tried to continue on the night, putting the abductor theory out there when Madeline was going to be discovered to be missing.

Judging by their actions to inform their relatives in the UK, the media and the UK police, they were covering their tracks, as the normal reaction would be to search the entire area immediately. I know this from going missing as a 4 year old and my Mother's reactions.

This charade has then continued to this day.

I think they are suffering from what they, or just Gerry, did and in some ways I can understand.

Their lives and their childrens' lives would have been destroyed had they been jailed for negligence. I can easily see that they could have thought that what's done is done, Madeline is not coming back and they must make the best for the twins.

It is understandable and who knows how we would react having been in the situation.

While I will always be curious to what happened, I try and let it go now. I don't think they are bad people, I think they have made a terrible mistake in leaving their children alone and have paid a terrible price for it.

Welcome to Boards chief!:)

The home of rampant speculation. You'll hear well articulated arguments from both sides, and more importantly, you'll get some great links.

But, honestly, none of us are any the wiser.

People are pretending to know what happened. It's really just a defence mechanism. Nobody wants to believe that the poor child is still alive. It's too horrific a thought.

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

Ok. Can you make an argument why you might expect someone who was involved in the disappearance of their daughter not to take part in the search? Surely their fear of getting caught would urge them to take part to avert suspicion?
And similarly with all the other oddities. Much of what is being cited here does not particularly point to guilt or innocent but to oddity. And those citing these oddities are not making any argument to the contrary.

Did they refuse to cooperate before they were made suspects?

I must say I do see where you are coming from completely.

But, there are oddities, and then there are untruths. The below quote is a load of bullshít on the part of the McCanns. I don't see it as odd. I see it as a lie.

Stella89 wrote: »

Kate mcann says that "the window was open and the curtains were blowing in the wind, the shutters were wind open, the shutters were up and the window was pushed right across, and I just knew... ..." , [/B]( notice the way Kate mentions she whizzes around the house for 10 or 15 seconds and checks cupboard even though she " knew she was taken") See police question number two
[/COLOR]http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/48-Questions-Kate-McCann-Faced-from-Portugese-Police/Article/200808115070874

1`37'
Gerry says " It was just as kate described, you could open the shutter from the outside"

Tubridy " You could open the shutter from the outside ....?

Gerry "Yeah , you could ..."