Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

TheZohanS

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

This Pat brown is selling this on Amazon? For how much?!
I could be way off base here but is there anyone out there not charging for their story?! Is there really not one person who doesn't want any Financial gain from this Child?!

Yeah but read what she says on Facebook. All the work that she does for law Enforcement and families is pro-bono, she uses the funds for travel expenses etc.

There are only a few victims' organizations that get big funding. I finally gave up trying to get any and also gave up trying to get donations. I have been funding pro bono work out of pocket for over a decade. I do as much as I can afford to but sometimes I have to tell a department or family they are going have to wait until I can get an opportunity for some paid job to be in the same location so I can tag the pro bono onto it and cut the cost a bit. I do as much as I can long distance so it is just my time and not travel costs. I wish I COULD get a big grant and then bring in interns and we could really do a lot.

Also an interesting post:

Another interesting thing about parents of murdered or missing children: they tend to rattle on and on about ten different leads (even ridiculous ones) and it is hard to get them to stop talking (and i say that with great love). The McCanns tend to be very clinical (and this has nothing to do with being doctors) and barely suggest possibilities. This shows me they are not going crazy looking anywhere.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Presumably you'd have pay for it the shops though? Does he charge for the Portuguese version? Was he paid for the documentary?

Why is Amaral repeatedly peddled out as the Knight in Shining Armour in all this? His book and program are as much his own opinions, not facts, as Kate's is.

maebee wrote: »

His opinions are supported by officers from 2 joint forces, who worked on the case.
Kate's book is facts? And you know this, how? You should have added an imo at the end of that sentence.

AH's post reads to me as saying that Kate's book is based on Kate's opinion as much as AH thinks Amaral's has his opinion in his. I don't read it as AH saying Kate's book is fact.

sunflower27

Pat Brown is a woman, not a man.

sunflower27

Some great reading here:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/06/pat-browns-analysis-madeleine-wherein.html

Shows how many people do not believe a word the McCann's say anymore and how much the tide is turning. I read all the replies last night... was bleary-eyed at the end but it was worth it...

maebee

Kess73 wrote: »

AH's post reads to me as saying that Kate's book is based on Kate's opinion as much as AH thinks Amaral's has his opinion in his. I don't read it as AH saying Kate's book is fact.

His book and program are as much his own opinions, not facts, as Kate's is.

Perhaps Audrey can clarify what she means but I read it as Amaral's book is his opinions wheras Kate's is facts.

sunflower27

I have read a good bit about people saying that kate said in her book that the window was closed despite claiming it was open and the air was gushing in when she first noticed Madeleine gone.

If this is true, how could she make such an error? Is it because since she made the claim the 'abductor' came in the window it has been proven that the window was closed, couldn't be opened from the outside and also there was no disturbance to the ledge (which would be expected if an adult climbed out of it).

Also, anyone here ever left a hotel room unlocked - ever. Notwithstanding the fact the children were in there, surely the McCanns would have been concerned about all their belongings - cameras, jewellery, money, passports etc.

I don't think the door was ever actually left unlocked. I think that is why the Tapas guy that checked on them didn't actually go in but just listened at the door - he didn't have the key (if indeed he listened at all).

The McCanns have to say the door was unlocked because if it wasn't, there could have been no 'abduction'.

lugha

Seachmall wrote: »

In saying that I don't think they're sociopaths and I've no opinion on what happened, I just wanted to make the point that it's entirely possible.

Yes it is entirely possible. Just as an intruder thru the window is possible. Just as police or someone else planting evidence is possible.

Surely a sensible approach is to focus on the more plausible scenario? For the intruder scenario the window is not taken seriously as there is a better option.

Alas with respect to the accidental death scenario some will insist that there exact version must be right and won't even contemplate an alternative.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

The english version is free of charge, anyone can download it free of charge, it doesn't cost a penny except the bandwidth from your service provider. Google it and you will find it, makes for an interesting read. The documentary was done for nothing, he did not receive a penny.

Katie McCann charges for her book, even the downloads and quite frankly I'd rather trust the police than someone that was/is a suspect :eek::eek: in her own daughters disappearance. Ask any criminal if they're guilty and most will say no. Most criminals don't like the police either, nothing new there.

There is no evidence Kate is a criminal and you know it.

In any case the reason Amaral's book is available is because, as Dark Cyrstal pointed out, he was banned from selling it. However this ban has been lifted now, so no doubt he will start to profit from it.

maebee wrote: »

His opinions are supported by officers from 2 joint forces, who worked on the case.
Kate's book is facts? And you know this, how? You should have added an imo at the end of that sentence.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I so agree about Kates book being facts ! Kate says it so it must be true ! How silly of anyone to beleive that . Gerry says the Tapas restaurant was like sitting in your back garden , so he says it it must be true .Well well .!!

I wasn't saying Kate's book is fact at all. I was pointing out that Amaral's is as much an opinion piece as hers is. Reread my post.

Amaral's profession does not make him infallible, whether you like it or not.

I do happen to believe Kate and Gerry, but that is my own personal feeling on the case.

And please refrain from telling me how I should post things.

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

Perhaps Audrey can clarify what she means but I read it as Amaral's book is his opinions wheras Kate's is facts.

You read what you wanted to see I think, not what I really said.

Seachmall

lugha wrote: »

Surely a sensible approach is to focus on the more plausible scenario?.

I was just addressing the sarcastic comment about how unlikely it is that the parents sociopaths and so on .

The evidence made public points nowhere, sure there's lots of speculation in this thread but there's no concrete evidence that points in any direction however statistically speaking the most plausible scenario is that she was abducted and/or killed by someone she knows.

I'm not saying that's what happened in this specific case but in similar cases of child abduction/murder the culprit is most likely known to the family (or a member of the family).

DexyDrain

lugha wrote: »

Yes it is entirely possible. Just as an intruder thru the window is possible. Just as police or someone else planting evidence is possible.

Surely a sensible approach is to focus on the more plausible scenario? For the intruder scenario the window is not taken seriously as there is a better option.

Alas with respect to the accidental death scenario some will insist that there exact version must be right and won't even contemplate an alternative.

How would they get Madeleine's DNA to plant it? Why would they not analyse it in their own labs instead of sending it to the UK? WTF would they do if Bob and Sue stroll in to a police station two weeks later and say 'here she is, we tried selling her on EBay but she didn't make the reserve'. Seriously. That would be Martin Grimes and Mark Harrisons careers wiped out in globally publicised shame, calling CSI and forensics across the board into question.

Getting in through the window was impossible, no one is arguing that anymore, even Kate 'Red Herring' McCann.

Another point to mention is that the huge majority of people started off believing the abduction story but lost faith in it bit by bit as the wheels started turning on the investigation and media blitz.

sunflower27

DexyDrain wrote: »

Another point to mention is that the huge majority of people started off believing the abduction story but lost faith in it bit by bit as the wheels started turning on the investigation and media blitz.

Very true - the amount of forums that are questioning the McCanns has skyrocketed.

Dexy - have you read Kate's book? Has she confirmed the window was now closed? If so, does that not mean she blatantly lied from the off about what she saw in the apartment, thereby totally hampering the police investigation?

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Yes it is entirely possible. Just as an intruder thru the window is possible. Just as police or someone else planting evidence is possible.

Surely a sensible approach is to focus on the more plausible scenario? For the intruder scenario the window is not taken seriously as there is a better option.

Alas with respect to the accidental death scenario some will insist that there exact version must be right and won't even contemplate an alternative.

The window scenario is possible. Until it is proven to have been impossible it has to remain plausible.


But a few things weaken the window scenario. One is the dust and lichen on the actual frame. It was untouched/undamaged. Meaning a person would have had to get out through it, carrying a three year old child, without having touched the frame in any way. Meaning that the person would have had to have jumped out from inside the room which would be a very very difficult and very noticeable thing to do.

Now the only way around the dust/lichen, imho, is for an abductor to have passed the child out through the window and into the arms of a second abductor. Again this would be difficult to do without moving the dust/lichen as the person on the inside would be passing the child downwards, but it is a more plausible way for no lichen to be disturbed than if there was only one abductor.

But two abductors now doubles your chance of being seen or being caught, especially if they use the windo and the door as part of their abduction. Abductoir number one would have to enter through a door, open a window, pass the child out through a window to abductor number two, then make their way back to the door and exit. Plus if the abductor did drug all three children as Kate McCann claims the amount of time spent in the apartment goes up.

In Kate's book there is a bit where a claim of checks being made every ten to 15 minutes that night compared to every 30 minutes on other nights, so if abductors had being watching them and the check times are to be believed, then on the night in question the abductors had to factor in the changed and more frequent check times on the fly.

Another problem with the window/shutter scenario is the fingerprints. Sure an abductor may have worn gloves but Gerry on the late late show claims to have opened and shut the shutters a number of times from the outside after he was told the child was gone, but the only prints found on the window or shutter were those of Kate McCann and only on the inside.

We also have the original claim that the shutters were forced open from the outside, something that came up that very night as the UK media were reporting that part of the story on newspaper before midnight that very night despite the fact that the police only arrived at 23:50. So it becomes very clear that the UK newspapers were contacted with a version of events (including the claim of an abduction) before the police even had a chance to have a good look around.

Also we have to factor in the fact that the window story changed a number of times. It went from shutters that were forced and had damage on them from being forced, to eventually shutters that were damage free and unforced but that could be opened from the outside, with the version involving an unlocked patio door popping up somewhere in between those versions.

I personally don't think the window was used in any way in any variation of this case by either the McCanns or a potential abductor. I think that the little girl went out the door and that the only important question that needs to be answered is that of who was carrying her at that moment.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Very true - the amount of forums that are questioning the McCanns has skyrocketed.

Dexy - have you read Kate's book? Has she confirmed the window was now closed? If so, does that not mean she blatantly lied from the off about what she saw in the apartment, thereby totally hampering the police investigation?

My heart lurched as I saw that now, behind them, the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside was raised all the way up

Kate McCann, Chapter 5; Missing, Page 72

gggirl

i would not reccommend this book, normally an author would have you gripped when your reading it or at least you would feel the emotion in it and feel like you were then when you were reading but nope nothing so cold the way she portrays the story !!

lugha

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not saying that's what happened in this specific case but in similar cases of child abduction/murder the culprit is most likely known to the family (or a member of the family).

We can still explore the plausibility of aspects of the case based on what we do know. We can for example rule outthe intruder thru the window scenario on grounds of implausibilty and IMO we can similarly rule out the merry wake one

sunflower27

So the window was opened, but had not been forced and no disturbance to any dust around it.

Not sure where I read it was closed.

I don't know how anyone could get in and out a window without disturbing anything - unless they somersaulted in. Maybe that is what happened. We should be looking for an egg-head gymnast then :rolleyes:

DexyDrain

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Kate McCann, Chapter 5; Missing, Page 72

Who closed the curtains if the abductor had climbed out? Kate told the police she never touched the windows or shutters yet Gerry said on the Late Late that they were down when he got there and he tried to open them from outside and found he could, but managed to do this without leaving fingerprints or marks.

You couldn't pass a living child through the window without them waking up and screaming, Gerry didn't smell chloroform in the room moments before Jane saw the abductor legging it. How would you wake three kids to give another form of sedatives without them raising hell? 'Sorry Matt, can you do your check later on, getting this spoon of crap into the kids is harder than I thought, whoever said abductors should never work with children and animals was dead right..'

AudreyHepburn

Tigerbaby wrote: »

re; the veracity of Amaral's book. well theres a hint in its title; The Truth of the Lie.

This thread is becoming like Groundhog Day. Why dont people people look at the evidence ?

So because Amaral says it's the truth, it must be the truth?

Come on!

:rolleyes:

lugha

DexyDrain wrote: »

Getting in through the window was impossible, no one is arguing that anymore, even Kate 'Red Herring' McCann.

No not impossible. But as pointed out by kess, most unlikely and one that I think you would agree can pretty much be dismissed.

If only such sound reasoning was applied to the scenarios that implicate the McCanns

mrsbyrne

sunflower27 wrote: »

Some great reading here:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/06/pat-browns-analysis-madeleine-wherein.html

Shows how many people do not believe a word the McCann's say anymore and how much the tide is turning. I read all the replies last night... was bleary-eyed at the end but it was worth it...

sunflower, try registering with joanna-morais and disagreeing with her and see what happens you:eek::eek::eek: out you go! joanna's site is anti-maccann. if you try to put forward any other theory than the one that hold s the McCanns responsible, you will be banned immediately.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

No not impossible. But as pointed out by kess, most unlikely and one that I think you would agree can pretty much be dismissed.

If only such sound reasoning was applied to the scenarios that implicate the McCanns

I have seen plenty of sound reasoning throughout this thread that implicate the McCanns.

sunflower27

mrsbyrne wrote: »

sunflower, try registering with joanna-morais and disagreeing with her and see what happens you:eek::eek::eek: out you go! joanna's site is anti-maccann. if you try to put forward any other theory than the one that hold s the McCanns responsible, you will be banned immediately.

I'd say I'd be pretty safe there then

DerekWaters

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So because Amaral says it's the truth, it must be the truth?

Come on!

:rolleyes:

Audrey the official police files indicate the same findings as Amaral......... The same police files that you read after claiming you didnt know they were freely available online

come on!

:rolleyes:


you choose to believe a pair of negligent parents against all the counter agruments and evidence put forward by the police.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is no evidence Kate is a criminal and you know it.

In any case the reason Amaral's book is available is because, as Dark Cyrstal pointed out, he was banned from selling it. However this ban has been lifted now, so no doubt he will start to profit from it.

"and you know it"? Are you starting this crap again?:rolleyes:

The book was available online free of charge before it was banned, it has been available all the time and is still available free of charge to this day. The ban was lifted nearly a year ago.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

"and you know it"? Are you starting this crap again?:rolleyes:

The book was available online free of charge before it was banned, it has been available all the time and is still available free of charge to this day. The ban was lifted nearly a year ago.

Well nonetheless just because it's free does not mean it is any more accurate that Kate's book.

Kess73

[QUOTE=TheZohan;72936169]"and you know it"? Are you starting this crap again?:rolleyes:The book was available online free of charge before it was banned, it has been available all the time and is still available free of charge to this day. The ban was lifted nearly a year ago.[/QUOTE]


She is right though. Kate McCann has not been convicted of anything thus far, and as such is not a criminal.


Now not being convicted as being a criminal is not the same as knowing for sure that a person is truly innocent, but unless Kate McCann gets convicted AH is correct in what she said.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well nonetheless just because it's free does not mean it is any more accurate that Kate's book.

Well the fact that it was written by a former police officer that worked on the McCann case, a man who is willing to let his story be seen for no profit, the man who was in charge of the investigations of the disappearance for Madeline makes it a hell of a lot more believable that that revisionist drivel that Katie McCann, a woman who abandoned her children time and time again so she could go boozing with her mates, a woman who failed her children by not getting a baby sitter, a woman who two police forces reckoned she had something to do with the disappearance of her child, a woman who was a SUSPECT in the disappearance of her own child, had written.

Indeed it is a hell of a lot more reliable than anything that McCann has come out with.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well nonetheless just because it's free does not mean it is any more accurate that Kate's book.

True. It being free online is no proof of it being more accurate, but in defence of a lot of what Amaral wrote, he does have the current conclusions of two police forces concurring with him.


Whereas the biggest cloud over Kate McCann's book in terms of casting doubt on the accuracy of it's content is the fact that a lot of what is said in the book (and said as if it was fact) directly contradicts stuff that both Kate and Gerry tried to pass off as fact in earlier interviews.


Like him or loathe him, and I cannot take to him myself, Amaral has at least managed to stick to one take on what he thinks happened. The same cannot be said for the McCann's grasp on what they claim to be concrete facts.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

Well the fact that it was written by a former police officer that worked on the McCann case, a man who is willing to let his story be seen for no profit, the man who was in charge of the investigations of the disappearance for Madeline makes it a hell of a lot more believable that that revisionist drivel that Katie McCann, a woman who abandoned her children time and time again so she could go boozing with her mates, a woman who failed her children by not getting a baby sitter, a woman who two police forces reckoned she had something to do with the disappearance of her child, a woman who was a SUSPECT in the disappearance of her own child, had written.

Indeed it is a hell of a lot more reliable than anything that McCann has come out with.

No it is not more reliable, it is Amaral's opinions based his own interpretation of the evidence nothing more.

And this is a man who drinks on the job and was put off a case for being involved in beating confessions out of people.

He will be making a profit from his book now the ban is lifted.