Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Well, I for one would like whoever is responsible for Madeleine's death to be prosecuted.

Saying you think people want her parents to be responsible is in your head as I have seen no indication anywhere of anyone saying the parents should be done for Madeleine's murder id they are innocent.

This all sounds like a veiled attempt at trying to make the people that believe the McCanns covered up their daughter's death out to be vindictive/hate-filled.

Come on now, don't try to twist my words into something they aren't.

I am merely calling the situation as I see it. I don't want to think this way as I said, but I can't help it.

Some people are just so adament that Kate and Gerry are involved that it feels to me like they'd be disappionted if it were proved they weren't.

But that's only my opinion on the situation, nothing more.

AudreyHepburn

is mise astra wrote: »

I agree that it is impossible to know how any of us would behave were we god forbid in theMcanns shoes, but there is so much about their behaviour I cant understand if it was just one thing then that would be grand, but I will never ever be able to get my head around the fact that they left their kids alone regularly, the lack of tears and emotion, leaving the kids in a crech with strangers when their sibling is missing, how would you trust anyone but yourselves to mind them? Sadly it doesnt add up to me, but neither does the cover up senario either.

I agree some of it is hard to fathom but again as Kate and Gerry were going through something none of us can understand I think it is better not to judge them.

God knows what must have been going on in their minds.

In her book Kate does say she was advised not to show too much emotion because the abductor might get a kick out of it.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Lugha - I am not being rude, but I am not going to comment again on all your posts as we have covered everything before.

You complained that no one addressed the problem you had with the parents not searching and when I respond that it has been covered already? Which is it?

I cannot recall you,or anyone else, giving an adequate response to the problem I raised with the parents not searching. You are of course entirely free to be as selective as you like in looking at the "evidence" and ignore any awkward bits. But when you are complaining of others doing precisely that. ....

sunflower27 wrote: »

But they do not know if Madeleine wandered out and are completly dismissive of that

I don't think anyone, on either side, is seriously considering that option. If you rule out accidental death and cover up, and the McCanns can do that, then an abductor is much more plausible (as M. body has not been found)

In any case, if they are genuinely looking for their daughter, they would and do continue to discount that she might be dead. I think it is what anyone in that situation would, or should do. I'm sure,like the rest of us that they know the chances of M still being alive are close to zero.

This "they only consider one option" is just more of the nonsense used as a stick to beat the McCanns with. Would you expect or advise any parent appealing to the public to help find their missing child to anything other than play down or outright dismiss that they might be dead

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Come on now, don't try to twist my words into something they aren't.

I am merely calling the situation as I see it. I don't want to think this way as I said, but I can't help it.

Some people are just so adament that Kate and Gerry are involved that it feels to me like they'd be disappionted if it were proved they weren't.

But that's only my opinion on the situation, nothing more.

I can't speak for others, but can tell you I most certainly don't feel like that.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In her book Kate does say she was advised not to show too much emotion because the abductor might get a kick out of it.

Who advised her that out of interest? It cannot have been the police, as they didn't believe there was an abductor.

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

I can't speak for others, but can tell you I most certainly don't feel like that.



Who advised her that out of interest? It cannot have been the police, as they didn't believe there was an abductor.

It was the British police, as a matter of fact;

I would soon be advised by British police experts to try to stay calm and not to show any emotion in public.....the thinking behind this advise was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick out of my distress

Kate McCann, Chapter 7, Aftermath, Page 112

_feedback_

Yeah thinking after I posted. They probably would have advised in the initial stages, rather than after further investigation ruled out an abductor.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Come on now, don't try to twist my words into something they aren't.

I am merely calling the situation as I see it. I don't want to think this way as I said, but I can't help it.

Some people are just so adament that Kate and Gerry are involved that it feels to me like they'd be disappionted if it were proved they weren't.

But that's only my opinion on the situation, nothing more.

Audrey, no-one has said anything about wanting innocent people to be punished. If you feel that way it is purely down to your thoughts.

Not one person has alluded to that at all.

Under those circumstances I see no point in mentioning it all - unless it is to have a dig.

It is quite pointless, really, don't you think?

Daisy M

elviscostello wrote: »

I can't speak for others, but can tell you I most certainly don't feel like that.



Who advised her that out of interest? It cannot have been the police, as they didn't believe there was an abductor.

I did hear at the time on sky news that the Mccanns were told not to cry or show emotion when they did their pleas for the return of Madeline. But I always found it hard to understand how they were so completely and utterly able to do this, how their grief wasnt so all consuming that they couldnt control it, it makes no sense. I partly understood it at the time as I thought they were controlling themselves in order to help get Madeline back,but as time and news apperances continued, their lack of grief really bothered me.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Audrey, no-one has said anything about wanting innocent people to be punished. If you feel that way it is purely down to your thoughts.

Not one person has alluded to that at all.

Under those circumstances I see no point in mentioning it all - unless it is to have a dig.

It is quite pointless, really, don't you think?

Again I am not trying get a dig in.

It's just the impression I am getting.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Again I am not trying get a dig in.

It's just the impression I am getting.

People are just exploring possibilities.

She could easily have just wandered out the unlocked front door and the man described by the Irish family just picked her up while she was wandering about.

Really, if a thread like this was causing me to think like you I'd just leave it at this stage and not come back to it.

maebee

lugha;72948883

This "they only consider one option" is just more of the nonsense used as a stick to beat the McCanns with.

How can it be nonsense lugha? I thought that it is generally agreed that the McCanns considered abduction as the only option. They said this on day one, dismissing the "Woke and Wandered" theory, or any other theory.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I agree some of it is hard to fathom but again as Kate and Gerry were going through something none of us can understand I think it is better not to judge them.

God knows what must have been going on in their minds.

In her book Kate does say she was advised not to show too much emotion because the abductor might get a kick out of it.

And yet they went directly against Police advice in terms of what not top say to the media on a number of occassions when the investigation was active. Like when they were advised at the very start not to make a big deal to the media about the child's eye condition in case that forced a potential abductor to injure the child's eye or kill the child.

When given this advise by the police, they went to the media and drew attention to the eye defect. The police at the time were frustrated at this and said something along the lines of that they could not understand why parents would go against police advise and put a child at risk.


Having now read large chunks of the book I think it is full of revisionist rhetoric as so much of what Kate claims in the book contradicts what she and her husband said to the media in 2007 and 2008, yet in her book she claims the book version is the truth or the real facts.

So either the book is totally true and she and Gerry did not tell the truth with the contradicting stuff in 2007/2008, or they were telling the truth in 2007/2008 and the book is a new version that fits better with the story in 2011.


Now that does not mean they covered up anything in relation to whatever actually happened to their child, and it does not mean that there was no abductor, but it does mean that their own versions of what happened are challenged by their own contradictory "facts"

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

. ....


.

This "they only consider one option" is just more of the nonsense used as a stick to beat the McCanns with. appealingWould you expect or advise any parent appealing to the public to help find their missing child to anything other than play down or outright dismiss that they might be dead

What I would consider sensible would be to appeal that any sighting is helpful .A little girl who may have fallen down a drain/ pool / rock / slope/ wandered into a shed/ bush / garden/ warehouse/ empty house / etc etc etc
As a matter of fact I would expect the parents of a missing child to keep an open mind and consider every single option .To dismiss the child wandering out is not helpful and they dismissed it from day one . Any one who has not seen the child dissapear or seen what happened can dismiss that option .It would be foolish to dismiss option at an early stage as it shuts out leads and clues .
If my child was missing I would leave myself open to every single option , even if they seemed daft as opening all leads and clues and keeping an open mind is far more benificial than closing you mind
Every detective will tell you to have an open mind, to believe the impossible and to search the ridicilous . Not doing so is unhlepful
So ,No , its not a stick to beat them with , it s a logical thought process , and you seem to favour that logical process

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

As the other slurs haven't worked now the last straw is to post about other sites.

There are mods on this site, report a post if you've a problem with a post, otherwise the thread will get locked, nobody wants that now.

What other slurs?

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

You complained that no one addressed the problem you had with the parents not searching and when I respond that it has been covered already? Which is it?

This is now a very long thread and I was not on it at the start. I did not see that the lack of search had been covered.

I suppose we just clock this up as further strange behaviour of the McCanns. Not much more than that to get out of it

DexyDrain

Lugha has said that while you would expect guilty people not to search, you would also expect guilty people trying to act innocent to search, therefore searching or not searching would not indicate guilt or innocence.

I wonder what innocent people pretending to be guilty would do?

Anyway, my own thoughts on this are that in an imaginary scenario where parents hid a body, we can't assume they knew the body would not be found.

What if they were just waiting for the call at any moment, and simply were trying to move the place of death from where they were staying to somwhere they could not be linked to? That would explain no searching if they thought the searches would not take very long.

Kate's distressed reaction in the police car when they spun around and sped back to the police station, and her constant talk of 'relief' when there was no incriminating evidence of what happened to Madeleine at various points during the investigation are very odd. Why are they so intent on demolishing the dogs indications, there is a chance a crazed attacker killed her in her bed, why do they insist no traces of death can possibly be correct?

So, if I have this correct, it woud be impossible for anyone to act calmly if something devastatingly bad happened to their child, unless a police man tells them to?

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

I don't think anyone, on either side, is seriously considering that option. If you rule out accidental death and cover up, and the McCanns can do that, then an abductor is much more plausible (as M. body has not been found)

If you are claiming no-one is seriously considering Madeleine woke up and wandered off, can you explain why you posted this a few days ago?

lugha wrote: »

If they are guilty? I think Madeleine may have wandered out of the apartment and had a fatal accident nearby. Thus initially it did seem like an abduction.
Perhaps the McCanns or their friends found her after the alarm had been raised and in a bad judgement call, made a snap decision to conceal it. Something along those lines.

Naikon

Old news?

maebee

Naikon wrote: »

Old news?

Most of the thread is old news. Four year old news. We just have to hope that SY will unearth some new news in their investigation.

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

What other slurs?

Conspiracy theorists, McCann haters, vile, sick people, that type of thing.

Hasn't worked though and I don't think it will.

Silver Moon

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It was the British police, as a matter of fact;

I would soon be advised by British police experts to try to stay calm and not to show any emotion in public.....the thinking behind this advise was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick out of my distress


Kate McCann, Chapter 7, Aftermath, Page 112

of course the McCanns have never revealed the name of the police officer(s) that apparently told them that...

AudreyHepburn

Silver Moon wrote: »

of course the McCanns have never revealed the name of the police officer(s) that apparently told them that...

So that's just another lie then is it?

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

Conspiracy theorists, McCann haters, vile, sick people, that type of thing.

Hasn't worked though and I don't think it will.

There are many conspiracy theories abounding on the thread - the mod who reviewed the thread said themsleves it was venturing into CT territory and could be moved there. Hardly a slur.

McCann haters - well not sure if I personally ever used that term here, but there have certainly been some posters who have displayed such tendencies towards the McCanns, judging by their language.

I certainly didn't call any posters here vile or sick people. That is a bannable offence. I have, however, seen the McCanns called vile a few times on here alright, though.

Let's not whitewash this and make out that posters who believe the McCanns had some hand or part in their daughter's disappearance are the only ones being given a hard time. The few posters who are trying to balance out the thread and defend the McCanns have had a good few slurs thrown their way as well - myself included.

It is a shame the thread has descended into a slanging match, because at the end of the day, the only focus should be on finding out what really happened to Madeleine.

It has become somewhat pointless debating the same issues over and over again anyway. As it stands, no one is any nearer actually knowing what happened to the poor girl. We all have our own theories, but what we do know for sure is that there simply isn't enough evidence to determine what happened either way and until new evidence surfaces, we will just continue going around in circles.

maebee

dark crystal wrote: »

It is a shame the thread has descended into a slanging match, because at the end of the day, the only focus should be on finding out what really happened to Madeleine.

It has become somewhat pointless debating the same issues over and over again anyway. As it stands, no one is any nearer actually knowing what happened to the poor girl. We all have our own theories, but what we do know for sure is that there simply isn't enough evidence to determine what happened either way and until new evidence surfaces, we will just continue going around in circles.

I agree with you here dc. I tried to move on from all the slagging, even from the extremely nasty post about me early this morning, by posting an article from today's Express. It is today's news and I'm still waiting for someone to comment on it.


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/254636/At-last-sad-Kate-McCann-can-smile-again

K-9

The comparison to the other site was definitely an attempt to tar this discussion as similar to others. Anyway, there is going to be an element of conspiracy theory to this, even some of the more pro McCann posters think it's possible some type of cover up happened, so it is going to come up, some more fanciful than others though!

iamwhoiam

maebee wrote: »

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/254636/At-last-sad-Kate-McCann-can-smile-again

AT LAST, SAD KATE MCCANN CAN SMILE AGAIN



Kate and Gerry McCann ay they have new hope that she will be found
Friday June 24,2011
By Daily Express Reporter FOR once, grieving Kate McCann can find something to smile about. So often pictured as a sad, withdrawn figure, she and husband Gerry burst into laughter as they promoted her book about their lost daughter Madeleine.


The couple were in Amsterdam to launch the Dutch edition of the book which they hope will help to boost the search for Madeleine across Europe.

The heart-rending memoir has already topped the best-seller list in Britain and Australia, and hundreds of thousands of copies have flown off the shelves.

A spokesman for publishers Transworld said: “We hope it will reach number one across Europe and that somebody with important information will read it and be moved to come forward.”

Copies have been snapped up in Portugal, where Madeleine, then three, went missing from a seaside resort on the Algarve during a family holiday in 2007. The McCanns, both 43, from Rothley, Leics, have been given a boost by the amount which the book has raised towards their fund to back the continuing search for their daughter.

They say they have new hope that she will be found after Scotland Yard agreed to review the investigation into her disappearance.

I have tried clicking the link and see ad after ad and no video of the Mc Canns , I was rooted to the odd accent of the speaker though!
Its difficult to comment as its not really clear why they were in such a happy mood .Maybe the book selling so well and maybe a completly different reason .?

And totallly off topic can any one hear what she says "eating an ..????.. low calorie diet can cure diabetes ""

sonnky

What did the McCanns get for christmas?

A spare room!

lugha

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What I would consider sensible would be to appeal that any sighting is helpful .A little girl who may have fallen down a drain/ pool / rock / slope/ wandered into a shed/ bush / garden/ warehouse/ empty house / etc etc etc
As a matter of fact I would expect the parents of a missing child to keep an open mind and consider every single option .To dismiss the child wandering out is not helpful and they dismissed it from day one . Any one who has not seen the child dissapear or seen what happened can dismiss that option .It would be foolish to dismiss option at an early stage as it shuts out leads and clues .
If my child was missing I would leave myself open to every single option , even if they seemed daft as opening all leads and clues and keeping an open mind is far more benificial than closing you mind
Every detective will tell you to have an open mind, to believe the impossible and to search the ridicilous . Not doing so is unhlepful
So ,No , its not a stick to beat them with , it s a logical thought process , and you seem to favour that logical process

You do not need to appeal to the public to try and find a body! If someone finds a body they will report it whether there is an appeal or not.*

Yes the police should keep an open mind and in private it is rational that the parents do likewise. But for a public appeal you want as many as possible to think she can be found. It might make the difference between someone giving a child a second a glance or not.*

So the McCanns are doing exactly what you would expect parents to do if their child was missing.*

But this is certainly an interesting new departure. We have had so many trying and failing to manufacture evidence by arguing that the McCanns are not behaving as innocent people should. Now they are behaving exactly as innocent people should and seemingly this too is evidence against them!

Once again, a piece of evidence for the prosecution amounts to absolutely nothing and points to nothing other than the prejudices of those who insist on pushing this nonsense. (I wonder how long it will be before this particular line is wheeled out again? )

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

If you are claiming no-one is seriously considering Madeleine woke up and wandered off, can you explain why you posted this a few days ago?

I suggest you read it again. Pay particular attention to the bit where I say the McCanns found her. Ie it is a scenario where the McCanns are guilty not one where Madeleine wandered off and her body not recovered.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

I agree with you here dc. I tried to move on from all the slagging, even from the extremely nasty post about me early this morning, by posting an article from today's Express. It is today's news and I'm still waiting for someone to comment on it.


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/254636/At-last-sad-Kate-McCann-can-smile-again

TBH, I can't see a whole lot to comment about on that link - looks like some blurb about the McCann's promoting their book in The Netherlands and Kate laughing at something that wasn't explained in the article.