Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

That's not quite what I am saying. I am saying they are citing something they say amounts to evidence but fail to say why this is so.

You are thinking about it too much! Nobody has the evidence, therefore nobody can say "that is clear evidence".

lugha wrote: »

If you cite any curiosity / inconsistency / lie, you need to ask: it is more likely that you would see this from someone who is guilty than someone who is innocent.

I'm not sure what anyone is guilty of. There are so many possibilities.

What I am sure of is, that all the inconsistencies do not sit well with me. There is something about the whole thing that is places great doubt in my mind about the level of involvement the parents had.

You say: you need to ask: it is more likely that you would see this from someone who is guilty than someone who is innocent.

I say: Their actions are wrong in so many ways. From not admitting any responsibility, to publically blaming others, to lying in relation to some things.

lugha wrote: »

If the answer is yes, you can call it evidence. If the answer is no, you are stuck with the curiosity / inconsistency / lie which needs to be explained. But you don't have evidence.

Of course I can't say they are guilty from what I see. If anyone could, we wouldn't be debating about it. Just because there is no evidence, doesn't mean that the curiosity / inconsistencies and lies mean nothing.

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

You are thinking about it too much!

Agreed! :pac:

elviscostello wrote: »

Nobody has the evidence, therefore nobody can say "that is clear evidence".

I would distinguish between evidence and proof. And a lot of what people are citing here is being offered as (some) evidence, when cumulated amounts to something substantial (if not quite conclusive). But much of this simply is not evidence and nobody in the last few pages (apart from Zohan in one post) attempted to try and make a link from oddity to evidence.

elviscostello wrote: »

I say: Their actions are wrong in so many ways. From not admitting any responsibility, to publically blaming others, to lying in relation to some things.

Fine. But the only interesting question for me is whether or not they or their friends were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. Their moral character or lack of it, doesn't interest me.

AskMyChocolate

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ah now in fairness I never said either of the above did I?

I don't why they erased their phones and so forth, if they really did.

But I don't believe you can equate deleting phone records with being guitly of killing their child.

Can you not see that you are coming across as someone who has decided that they are innocent, for no apparent reason, other than that you want them to be innocent?

An impartial person would suspect them, even if there was no circumstancial evidence. For the simple reason that the majority of child abuse, by a huge margin, is perpetrated by somebody who knows the child, and usually by the guardians.

Statistically, the Tapas 9 should have been suspects from the word go. Why the Portuguese police treated them with kid gloves is beyond me.

Statistically, it is far more likely that the two lads with their "pact of silence" had more to do with Madeleine's disappearance than some random abductor.

I don't understand why you can't approach this with an open mind.

Surely, even the most inveterate McCann supporter must think that there is something "off" about the whole thing.

I don't believe that GerryMcCann and David Payne sold Madeleine into a paedophile ring. I also don't discount it.

I don't believe that the child was opportunely snatched by some random abductor. I also don't discount it.

I don't believe that Madeleine fell off the back of the couch (despite my theories :pac:) and hopped her head off a radiator. But I don't discount it.

I just don't understand people who assume they're innocent or assume they're guilty,for no logical reason, when the whole thing stinks to high heavens.

Quite frankly, I would be in Little Acorn and Kess73's camp. I don't know what happened.Probably why I get abuse from both sides.


Btw, my new theory is that the Tapas 9 were BDSM swingers, and that's why they wiped their phones and refused to hand over their credit card statements.

Choco

Mistyeyes321

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Can you not see that you are coming across as someone who has decided that they are innocent, for no apparent reason, other than that you want them to be innocent?

An impartial person would suspect them, even if there was no circumstancial evidence. For the simple reason that the majority of child abuse, by a huge margin, is perpetrated by somebody who knows the child, and usually by the guardians.

Statistically, the Tapas 9 should have been suspects from the word go. Why the Portuguese police treated them with kid gloves is beyond me.

Statistically, it is far more likely that the two lads with their "pact of silence" had more to do with Madeleine's disappearance than some random abductor.

I don't understand why you can't approach this with an open mind.

Surely, even the most inveterate McCann supporter must think that there is something "off" about the whole thing.

I don't believe that GerryMcCann and David Payne sold Madeleine into a paedophile ring. I also don't discount it.

I don't believe that the child was opportunely snatched by some random abductor. I also don't discount it.

I don't believe that Madeleine fell off the back of the couch (despite my theories :pac:) and hopped her head off a radiator. But I don't discount it.

I just don't understand people who assume they're innocent or assume they're guilty,for no logical reason, when the whole thing stinks to high heavens.

Quite frankly, I would be in Little Acorn and Kess73's camp. I don't know what happened.Probably why I get abuse from both sides.


Btw, my new theory is that the Tapas 9 were BDSM swingers, and that's why they wiped their phones and refused to hand over their credit card statements.

Choco

Ohh Dear what is BDSM?:o:)

Don't bother answering the last question. I have just googled it....Just off for a rest!!

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

I would distinguish between evidence and proof. And a lot of what people are citing here is being offered as (some) evidence, when cumulated amounts to something substantial (if not quite conclusive). But much of this simply is not evidence and nobody in the last few pages (apart from Zohan in one post) attempted to try and make a link from oddity to evidence.

Maybe the sun is going to my head, but I thought I said twice already. The information in the thread is the information that is out there. There's no groundbreaking stuff here. The oddities (word of the day :pac:) can't link directly to evidence.

If they could, that would have been done already.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

Agreed! :pac:
But much of this simply is not evidence and nobody in the last few pages (apart from Zohan in one post) attempted to try and make a link from oddity to evidence....

Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? It requires an inference, a jump.. because the links to tie it all together conclusively are missing...

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/circumstantial_evidence.html

In the case of a murder, examples of circumstantial evidence include:

• The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim
• The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence
• The fact that he or she lied about his or her alibi
• The fact that he or she was in the area at the time that the offence was committed
• The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA corresponds to blood or DNA found on the victim's body.

Did the McCanns and others act in a bizarre and suspicious way after the disappearance............absolutely. You can describe them as 'oddities' all you want. Do I believe that in all the testimonies and statements given, somebody is deliberately lying about something.......yes I do.

Circumstantial evidence must be closely examined and it must be looked at cumulatively....However, if there are a number of different strands of circumstantial evidence, taken together, they have more weight

Unlike the way some people are approaching it by trying to clutch at straws to explain away each 'oddity' individually.

up for anything

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

my new theory is that the Tapas 9 were BDSM swingers
Choco

I've missed any links that were posted to them being swingers... is there anything to substantiate that other than rumour.

Why have you settled on BDSM?

I'm settling into the her body was hidden in the church camp. I can't see any other reason that the priest would have gotten his knickers into such a twist. I'd imagine priests hear enough of the common or garden variety of murder confessions but the thought that they'd used him as well could have been the straw that broke his back.

maebee

dark crystal wrote: »

I know that in the cases of Sarah Payne and the Soham girls, their parents were not out searching - the police were (and in the case of Holly and Jessica, the RAF as well). Neither of these families were guilty of murder.There would be family liaison police officers sent to the family's home to relay any news of the search and provide support for the parents as well.

Neither were they out jogging & blogging. They didn't set up websites within a week and speak about a yearly anniversary event to mark their child's disappearance. They didn't hire top lawyers & PR people.

In the McCann case, they had the added obstacle of being in a foreign country, so would have no idea about the local surrounding areas and it would seem far more sensible to allow the police to search, given that they would have a much better geographical knowledge of the area involved

.

the added obstacle of being in a foreign country, so would have no idea about the local surrounding areas = DO NOT LEAVE 3 TODDLERS IN AN UNLOCKED APT NIGHT AFTER NIGHT.

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

Maybe the sun is going to my head, but I thought I said twice already. The information in the thread is the information that is out there. There's no groundbreaking stuff here. The oddities (word of the day :pac:) can't link directly to evidence.

If they could, that would have been done already.

It is not about linking to evidence, it is about arguing that it is evidence. It is the argument that is missing, not any link.

People are citing something or other and saying: this is strange. They should be saying: this is strange and it is something you might expect if they were guilty.

For example, we have people repeatedly citing the inconsistent testimonies of the friends. The un-argued implication is that this is what you would expect if there was a conspiracy. I simply don’t think that is true. If there was a conspiracy then I would expect much broader agreement in their stories. Hence the innocent explanation is more plausible than the conspiracy one. In which case it can be pretty much dismissed as evidence IMO, or do you disagree on this point (of going with the most plausible explanation)?

Or the business of them not physically searching for Madeleine. I would expect someone who was somehow involved but trying to hide it to be very keen to take part in the search (remember Robert Holohon?). So again the benign explanation is the more plausible one to me.

Or the one about Kate refusing to answer the wardrobe question?

Now if anyone disagrees that innocent explanations are more plausible then they can make their argument and we debate whether it is or not. But what we are getting is people citing oddities (yes, that word again ) but failing to argue (not link!) that it constitutes evidence.

_feedback_

I used the word link, because that is what you asked for in the post I quoted. You said that TheZohan was the only one to attempt to make "a link from oddity to evidence."

Again, from the oddities, people are taking what they will. I don't mean to be rude, but some of the innocent explanations you have offered are nothing short of ridiculous in my opinion.

I think the oddities that people see, really need no explanation. It is as clear as todays sky that they are flashing bright lights which say suspicious.

AudreyHepburn

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Can you not see that you are coming across as someone who has decided that they are innocent, for no apparent reason, other than that you want them to be innocent?

An impartial person would suspect them, even if there was no circumstancial evidence. For the simple reason that the majority of child abuse, by a huge margin, is perpetrated by somebody who knows the child, and usually by the guardians.

Statistically, the Tapas 9 should have been suspects from the word go. Why the Portuguese police treated them with kid gloves is beyond me.

Statistically, it is far more likely that the two lads with their "pact of silence" had more to do with Madeleine's disappearance than some random abductor.

I don't understand why you can't approach this with an open mind.

Surely, even the most inveterate McCann supporter must think that there is something "off" about the whole thing.

I don't believe that GerryMcCann and David Payne sold Madeleine into a paedophile ring. I also don't discount it.

I don't believe that the child was opportunely snatched by some random abductor. I also don't discount it.

I don't believe that Madeleine fell off the back of the couch (despite my theories :pac:) and hopped her head off a radiator. But I don't discount it.

I just don't understand people who assume they're innocent or assume they're guilty,for no logical reason, when the whole thing stinks to high heavens.

Quite frankly, I would be in Little Acorn and Kess73's camp. I don't know what happened.Probably why I get abuse from both sides.


Btw, my new theory is that the Tapas 9 were BDSM swingers, and that's why they wiped their phones and refused to hand over their credit card statements.

Choco

I am open-minded.

I know there is a possibility the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently or otherwise and have been lying for the last four years, I accept that.

I know there is the possibility she fell and hit her head and died and the McCanns know and have been lying for four years, I accept that too.

I know that Gerry could have sold her to paedophile ring. I know the Tapas 9 could be lying. I know a lot of things don't add up. I accept that.

Equally I know it could have been an abductor. I know the McCanns could be totally innocent.

I don't know what happened but I find it extremely hard to believe that the McCanns could have spent the last four years lying and searching for a child they know to be dead.

They would have to be the incarnation of evil, complete physcopaths to do that. Do they strike anyone as that?

AskMyChocolate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Ohh Dear what is BDSM?:o:)

Don't bother answering the last question. I have just googled it....Just off for a rest!!

Your poor aul eyes!

Mistyeyes 322.:pac:

maebee

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/mccann-exposure-is-carter-rucked/

McCann Exposure is Carter-Rucked.

Brian Kennedy via Carter Ruck has raised objections to four articles posted on McCann Exposure. Below is McCann Exposure’s response to Carter Ruck’s ““cease and desist” demand.
To whom it may concern,

Re: Carter Ruck‘s “cease and desist” computer-mediated-communication to WordPress.com dated 2nd June 2011, concerning four articles published at McCann Exposure.

Carter Ruck is in no position to ascertain the notion that Kate and Gerald McCann are “responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance or death” is a false allegation. It remains a mystery as to what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Furthermore, the truthfulness of such a hypothesis is a matter that can only be determined in Court. As such McCann Exposure will continue to hypothesize and debate the possibility that the McCann’s were complicit in their daughter‘s disappearance. Abundant discussion of this nature should be of no surprise given that a number of persons whom have been directly involved in the investigation of Madeleine disappearance have perceived this to possibly be the case.

For example, Mark Harrison, National Search Adviser, presented a report detailing the conclusions of his analysis to the investigation coordinators admitting the possibility that Madeleine could be dead, and her body hidden in an area near Praia da Luz. Based on his conclusions he suggested that in order to follow this line of inquiry specialized dogs should be used. Specifically, an enhanced victim recovery dog trained to detect cadaver scent, and a crime scene investigation dog able to detect human blood. Mr. Harrison also suggested that investigators should concentrate in the apartment where the McCann family had stayed, and in the Ocean Club apartments that had been occupied by their group of friends. He further suggested that “new and deeper searches” to Robert Murat’s home and “forensic searches” to Mr. Murat and his friends’ cars and to the McCann’s hire car should be undertaken. Lee Rainbow, a National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) expert, wrote in a report to the investigating coordinators, “It was Madeleine’s father who was the last one to see her alive. The family is a lead that should be followed. The contradictions in Gerald McCann’s statements might lead us to suspect a homicide.” Like Mr. Harrison, he too recommended that the police take new forensics from the McCann’s holiday apartment. Subsequent searches undertaken by Martin Grimes and his dogs on the back of these recommendations lend weight to the hypothesis that a cadaver had at some point been present in apartment 5a, as did the Forensic Science Services initial reports.

In light of this, McCann Exposure proposes that Carter Ruck’s attempt to impress on WordPress.com that the Portuguese authorities “confirmed that there was no evidence what so ever to implicate” Kate and Gerald McCann in their daughter’s disappearance is highly questionable. Additionally, Carter Ruck’s sympathy with “a tragic situation in which Mr and Mrs McCann found themselves” and Brian Kennedy’s significant donations and resources he utilized are of little consequence when alleging that untrue statements, defamation or libel are present on McCann Exposure.

None of the posts to which Mr. Kennedy objects are in anyway “highly defamatory”. McCann Exposure does NOT engage in the publication or encouragement of threatening or harassing content. Thus, this renders Carter Ruck’s statement of “hate content” negligible. Details of Mr. Kennedy’s home address, including an architectural map of Swettenham Hall, is freely accessible via the internet. Photographs of his home and businesses can also be freely accessed via internet searches. In the UK personal information such as home and business addresses are declared when registering a company; this information is also easily accessible via internet searches. McCann Exposure argues that Mr. Kennedy’s privacy and his family’s privacy were compromised the moment he became highly publicized as the McCann’s benefactor. Further, that his personal safety is more likely to have been jeopardized by his dubious business dealings as opposed to a few articles published on an obscure blog that speculates about his interest and involvement in the McCann case. McCann Exposure also contends that Mr. Kennedy risked his personal safety, his son’s personal safety and the personal safety of several persons sworn to Portuguese judicial secrecy when he meddled with witnesses and attempted to perform a 24-hour “stake out” whilst perversely “investigating” whom ever he was ‘staking out‘ at that time. It is a fact that Mr. Kennedy’s actions of holding private meetings with several witnesses in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann – one of whom was a Prime Suspect – could constitute interfering with witnesses and is a custodial offense both in the UK and in Portugal.

McCann Exposure has reviewed the four articles concerned and can confirm the following:

Articles “Madeleine Foundation’s Tony Bennett alleges Brian Kennedy intimidated witnesses in Madeleine McCann case” and “Brian “I play to win” Kennedy, McCann’s multi-millionaire benefactor – EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS removed at request of Carter Ruck“, have been amended.

Article “Brian Kennedy: The Cheshire Police Connection and ’Rotherhamgate’ – The Rotherham Rugby Union Club Slush Fund”, has been password protected and is therefore no longer accessible.

Article “Brian Kennedy seeks window of opportunity with banks”, required no action. This article was first published by The Business Desk and remains active on their website; it is not defamatory or libelous in any regard.

On a final note, McCann Exposure’s chief objective is to provide a chronological archive of articles on what is arguably the most controversial and unprecedented child disappearance case of contemporary times. Given that the McCann’s have courted the public relentlessly over the last four years in a bid to obtain information in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance and monies donated to their fund, McCann Exposure argues that it is the public’s right and in their interest that they have access to all facets of the case: something which the McCann’s, with a helping hand from Carter Ruck, wish to deprive them from. As such, articles published by McCann Exposure do not “constitute the criminal offense of harassment”. On the contrary, McCann Exposure is providing a chronological documented account of events that have unfolded in the McCann case. Articles published on McCann Exposure comprise a factual account of the twists and turns in the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Yours Sincerely,

McCann Exposure.

AskMyChocolate

elviscostello wrote: »

Maybe the sun is going to my head, but I thought I said twice already. The information in the thread is the information that is out there. There's no groundbreaking stuff here. The oddities (word of the day :pac:) can't link directly to evidence.

If they could, that would have been done already.

Are they the lads who went "Ecky thump" with black puddings?

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

Neither were they out jogging & blogging. They didn't set up websites within a week and speak about a yearly anniversary event to mark their child's disappearance. They didn't hire top lawyers & PR people.



.

the added obstacle of being in a foreign country, so would have no idea about the local surrounding areas = DO NOT LEAVE 3 TODDLERS IN AN UNLOCKED APT NIGHT AFTER NIGHT.

They didn't set up websites, or hire lawyers or PR people because, tragically, their children were found dead. They are not still searching for their children.
So what if they speak about her yearly anniversary? Is that a bad thing?

Sara Payne also wrote a book about her experience - does that make her guilty of cashing in her tragedy, as has been the accusation levelled at Kate McCann?

I'm also getting more than a little frustrated at people condemning them for jogging - so what if they went jogging? Maybe it helped them to clear their heads, maybe they took the chance to look for Madeleine in places that hadn't yet been searched, maybe they needed some other outlet rather than just sitting around worrying and thinking the worst....nobody has the right to dictate how someone else should handle their grief.


As for the whole leaving the kids alone argument, it's been done, so I'm not going there again. They are paying the ultimate price for that mistake and I don't want to keep labouring the point any further.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

For example, we have people repeatedly citing the inconsistent testimonies of the friends. The un-argued implication is that this is what you would expect if there was a conspiracy. I simply don’t think that is true. If there was a conspiracy then I would expect much broader agreement in their stories. Hence the innocent explanation is more plausible than the conspiracy one. In which case it can be pretty much dismissed as evidence IMO, or do you disagree on this point (of going with the most plausible explanation)?

Or you know just highlighting the fact that two completely contradictory timelines/sightings etc both can't be right.. it doesn't have to be some agreed upon story in order for at least one person to be lying/covering something up.

lugha wrote: »

But what we are getting is people citing oddities (yes, that word again ) but failing to argue (not link!) that it constitutes evidence.

Did you even read the piece linked above re circumstantial evidence? Or are you trying to argue that all your 'oddities' do not amount to bizarre and suspicious behaviour?

AskMyChocolate

prinz wrote: »

Nobody is equating them. Deleting phone records, along with a whole host of other inconsistencies in the various versions of events/stories etc, all add up to a very murky picture which naturally leads to suspicion falling on the McCanns and their friends.

It takes a very special person to come up with ever more far-fetched reasons in attempts to explain away all the issues such as the phone logs, different descriptions of the person seen with the child, completely different time lines etc etc etc.

Taking it all into account how anyone can come to a conclusion that they are 100% sure that the McCanns are not hiding anything (doesn't even have to be killing Madeleine it could be something else entirely) is beyond me.

Cheers chief. You saved me a post.

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

Again, from the oddities, people are taking what they will. I don't mean to be rude, but some of the innocent explanations you have offered are nothing short of ridiculous in my opinion.

Such as?

maebee

dark crystal wrote: »

They didn't set up websites, or hire lawyers or PR people because, tragically, their children were found dead. They are not still searching for their children.
So what if they speak about her yearly anniversary? Is that a bad thing?

The Soham girls were missing for 2 weeks before their bodies were found. Sarah Payne's body was found 17 days after her disappearance. The point I'm trying to make is that the McCanns had set up their fund, website, gotten lawyered up etc within a week of Madeleine's disappearance. Imo, they knew that Madeleine would not be found. Sorry if I'm not explaining it very well.

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

The Soham girls were missing for 2 weeks before their bodies were found. Sarah Payne's body was found 17 days after her disappearance. The point I'm trying to make is that the McCanns had set up their fund, website, gotten lawyered up etc within a week of Madeleine's disappearance. Imo, they knew that Madeleine would not be found. Sorry if I'm not explaining it very well.

Sorry maybe it's the heat but I can't see how them setting up a fund and so forth equates with them not knowing Madeleine is not coming home.

Where is the connection there?

lugha

prinz wrote: »

Or you know just highlighting the fact that two completely contradictory timelines/sightings etc both can't be right.. it doesn't have to be some agreed upon story in order for at least one person to be lying/covering something up.



Did you even read the piece linked above re circumstantial evidence? Or are you trying to argue that all your 'oddities' do not amount to bizarre and suspicious behaviour?

With the greatest respect prinz I don't think you understand the fundamental point I am making. You certainly are not addressing it.

With regards to the problem with the inconsistent time lines / testimonies my argument (that you don't address) is that this is more likely what you would expect if there was no conspiracy than if there was.

Now you can dispute my view on what's more likely if you wish. Or you offer another way to assess the value of a piece of evidence. But what you are doing is simply repeating "but their stories don't fit". I agree the don't. I don't agree that this adds to the evidence for the guilt of the McCanns.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

With the greatest respect prinz I don't think you understand the fundamental point I am making. You certainly are not addressing it..

I understand it and I have addressed it, numerous times... you just keep coming back with this conspiracy malarky. It doesn't need to be a 'conspiracy' so this nonsense of it not adding up is to be expected is blown out of the water. One of them is wrong/or is lying deliberately. Simple, is that simple enough to comprehend?

lugha wrote: »

With regards to the problem with the inconsistent time lines / testimonies my argument (that you don't address) is that this is more likely what you would expect if there was no conspiracy than if there was...

Forget the conspiracy.... somebody is mistaken or is lying. Do you accept that?

lugha wrote: »

Now you can dispute my view on what's more likely if you wish. Or you offer another way to assess the value of a piece of evidence....

Not long ago it wasn't evidence at all...

lugha wrote: »

I don't agree that this adds to the evidence for the guilt of the McCanns.

It doesn't amount to conclusive evidence of their guilt I never claimed it did..... but it amounts to evidence alright, contrary to your earlier points that it didn't even amount to that much.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

The Soham girls were missing for 2 weeks before their bodies were found. Sarah Payne's body was found 17 days after her disappearance. The point I'm trying to make is that the McCanns had set up their fund, website, gotten lawyered up etc within a week of Madeleine's disappearance. Imo, they knew that Madeleine would not be found. Sorry if I'm not explaining it very well.

The website was launched to circulate pictures of Madeleine, not just locally, but globally. Police say that after 48 hours, the chance of finding a missing child alive decreases dramatically. As far as I'm concerned, they were using the internet as a proactive means of finding their daughter. All it takes is one person to recognise her somewhere for it to have worked.

As I've said before, the McCanns seem to have little faith in the Portugese investigation, so they did all they could to raise the profile of the case themselves. Nothing wrong in that.

All this exposure they brought (and are still bringing) on themselves - does this seem like the smartest thing to do if you've killed your child, hidden her somewhere in a foreign country, conspired to cover it up with 7 friends and are calculatingly preparing to cash in on that crime?

Not only is it not smart, it's positively sociopathic. Plain out evil, in fact. Sorry, but the McCanns don't strike me as either.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

maebee wrote: »

Sorry maybe it's the heat but I can't see how them setting up a fund and so forth equates with them not knowing Madeleine is not coming home.

Where is the connection there?

Within a week they had set up the fund, John McCann gave up his job to work full time on the campaign, they had hired a full-time PR person. How did they not know that Madeleine would not be found the following day? After 10 days Gerry McCann was talking about organising a yearly event. That sounds to me like he wasn't expecting Madeleine to be around in a year's time.

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Within a week they had set up the fund, John McCann gave up his job to work full time on the campaign, they had hired a full-time PR person. How did they not know that Madeleine would not be found the following day?

They didn't know either way, but as parents you do whatever it takes to find your child.

After 10 days Gerry McCann was talking about organising a yearly event. That sounds to me like he wasn't expecting Madeleine to be around in a year's time.

Did he? Source?

maebee

As I've said before, the McCanns seem to have little faith in the Portugese investigation, so they did all they could to raise the profile of the case themselves. Nothing wrong in that.

The McCanns expressed their faith in the PJ 3 months after Madeleine's disappearance. (I will have a look for their quote and come back with it).
It was when they were made arguidos on Sept 7th 2007 that they "lost their faith" in the police.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

maebee wrote: »

They didn't know either way, but as parents you do whatever it takes to find your child.


Did he? Source?

On June 3rd 2007 GM was talking about an event, to raise awareness that Madeleine is still missing, to be held later in that year. He obviously wasn't expecting Madeleine to be found by then.


http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/12/gerry-mccann-speaking-on-june-3rd-2007.html

lugha

prinz wrote: »

One of them is wrong/or is lying deliberately.

Yes, obviously so. Definitely wrong, and possibly lying about something. But the question is, are they lying in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance (and that would be a conspiracy) or about some other shenanigans. My point (and I am sorry but you have not addressed it) is that mixed up and inconsistent accounts is what I would expect if there wasn’t a conspiracy. If they had agreed to conceal some involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance then I would expect their stories to knit together better.

You continue to throw out these inconsistencies as suspicious. But you don’t offer any way to assess the value of this evidence (or if you like, “evidence”), nor do you critique the way I assess it.

And I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the conspiracy theory! If nobody other than the McCanns were involved then you would necessary have to admit that innocent eye-witnesses can get things horribly wrong!

prinz wrote: »

It doesn't amount to conclusive evidence of their guilt I never claimed it did..... but it amounts to evidence alright, contrary to your earlier points that it didn't even amount to that much.

Again I distinguish between evidence and proof. I am not demanding that evidence be conclusive, only that it be of some value. And if the observed evidence was more likely to arise on the premise that the McCanns were innocent than it were on the premise that they were not then I think that is a plausible (though imperfect, indeed flawed) to discount it. If you have a better way of evaluating evidence, then I am all eyes (ears are no help on boards ).

Mountainsandh

NTMK wrote: »

what kind of logic is that?
the last thing i would do if a child went missing would be to delete phone records because there are embarrassing messages on it. They planned to wipe their phones cause there is no chance all nine just wipe their phones of their own accord
QUOTE]

Took a quote at random (about the phones), I'm in a rush and didn't read everything...

... can I just point that having read Kate's account, and simply using common sense, from the moment they alerted their families back in the UK (and that goes for the Tapas friends too), that is, on the same night of course, their phones must have been continually beeping and ringing. Same and worse the next day, when the media got hold of the story.

People who have kids can relate I'm sure : picture the situation, you're in Portugal, Sky News shows child being abducted from British couple there, how many of your friends and relatives are going to text you and ring you in the following hours ?

Their phones must have been red hot with the activity.

So, if I'm waiting on a text from my Mum, and my phone is full, or I'm waiting on an important call from the police whose number I really want to be recorded on my phone for later, I'm going to make sure I have an empty box for the texts, and clear memory so the last number to ring me will be logged for later.

Have to go now will catch up some time !

PapaQuebec

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Well the evidence I take it was the testimony of the children, and more than likely evidence on their body.

My point was that breaking into a flat at night (when the parents were asleep next door !) has occured before in the area, and at least one of the perpetrators is free (more than likely more than one around).
It is possible that one such event turned into an abduction, premeditated or not.

What has been done or said by the McCanns is very well documented, as well as a selection of adequate (albeit often very much delayed) measures undertaken by the Portugese police force.

Kate McC on the other hand points at how inadequate the investigation into peadophiles in the area was, and far from enough considering the above events.

"MAJORCA, SEPTEMBER 2005



Madeleine McCann is two and a half years old and the twins just a few months when they go on holiday to Majorca with their parents. Three couples and their children go with them: David and Fiona Payne with their one-year-old daughter (Fiona is pregnant with their second child); S. and T., with their two children aged 1 and 3; finally S.G. and K.G., who have a one and a half year old daughter, E. (K.G., is also expecting a child). The trip was organised by David Payne. The latter rented a villa big enough to accommodate all of them.

S.G. got to know Madeleine's mother at university in Dundee, between 1987 and 1992. K.G. met Gerry McCann for the first time at his wedding to Kate in 1998. They become good friends, see each other regularly, spend weekends together and phone each other often.

After dinner on the third or fourth evening in Majorca, the friends are all settled on the patio. They are having a drink and chatting when K.G. witnesses a scene which flabbergasts her and makes her fear for the safety of her daughter and the other children.

She is sitting between Gerry McCann and David Payne when she hears the latter ask if she - probably Madeleine - did "that": he then puts a finger in his mouth and begins sucking it while putting it in and out - the sexual connotation is obvious - while with the other hand, he traces small small circles around his nipple in an explicitly provocative way. While K.G., stupefied, regards Gerry and David, an uneasy silences settles around the table. Then they all start chatting again as if nothing happened. K.G. starts to distrust the way David Payne relates to the little ones. On another occasion, she sees David Payne making the same gestures while speaking about his own daughter. At this time, it's the fathers who give the children their baths, but K.G. no longer lets Payne near her daughter. After the holiday, K.G. will only meet the Paynes on one occasion, and she will not speak to them. Over the next two years, relations between K.G., S.G. and the McCanns becomes distanced; they will only see each other now at children's birthday parties.

This witness statement from the couple, S.G. and K.G., is taken by the English police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine's disappearance. That information, very important for the progress of the investigation, was never sent to the Portuguese police.

When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements -, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.

It will only be after my removal from the investigation, in October 2007, that this statement will finally be sent to the Portuguese police. Why did the British keep it secret for more than six months? It is all the more surprising that David Payne, who had planned the trip to Majorca - of whom it was known that his behaviour towards the children was, to say the least, questionable -, is the same person who organised the holiday in Portugal, that he is one of those closest to Madeleine and that he is the first friend of the family to have been seen with Kate McCann just after the disappearance (we will talk further about this). He was still present in Vila da Luz when the English police received that witness statement: why wasn't he interviewed immediately?

Without doubt, the Portuguese police could have made progress with the investigation thanks to that lead: such behaviour would merit close attention. Were we looking in the right direction? Might we have established a link with the events of May 3rd? It is difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses." Goncarlo Amaral

I couldn't agree more!