Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AskMyChocolate

ISDW wrote: »

But its not illegal, what business is it of yours or anyone else's how someone spends their holiday?

I've been to hotels abroad and the children's club would run from 10am in the morning until 4/5pm. I've also been to Butlins where I haven't seen the children (10/11/12 year olds) from breakfast until dinner because they've been off doing the activities.

Heh, ISDW. I agree with a lot of your points, and certainly when it comes to older kids, they want to be with their mates,or preferably their older cousins, rather than their fuddy-duddy parents, but if you can explain to me how two men go out on a boating trip and don't think that their younger kids wouldn't rather be with them than stuck in a creche, then you're either a better (wo)man than me or more selfishly delusional than the Tapas 9. IMO

Freddie59

danmoz wrote: »

Upon returning to their apartment and discovering Madeleine was gone, Kate then ran back to the restaurant, leaving the twins alone in the apartment from which their sister had just allegedly been abducted from to inform the others she was missing.

Good God. I never realised that.:eek: Regardless of who's responsible (and the McCanns must shoulder 90%) they have to live with it and I do feel genuinely sorry for them.

But you CANNOT - under ANY circumstances - do what they did (leave her alone). Absolutely no way. But it is all academic. I pray that the child is dead as opposed to in the hands of paedophiles though.

AskMyChocolate

ISDW wrote: »

So they saw him at 10pm, is that not around the time that Madeleine was discovered missing, and Gerry was sat at a table in the restaurant, surrounded by witnesses? Including staff members, not just his friends?

I think this is a very important point. I don't think anyone suspects the Smith family of being anything but people trying to do their civic duty. Their extraordinary efforts to avoid the press certainly strengthens this perception. If the timeline is right, it certainly adds a lot of credence to the theory that Madeleine may have been abducted. It could of course, simply have been another man taking his tired daughter home from the beach, but I think if any witnesses come across as reliable, it is the Smith family and Mrs.Fenn. IMO.

mcwhirter

sxt wrote: »

I see a Gerry and kate mcann have a new book out, and are appearing on the late late show to plug it next week. A good place for them to appear as they are probablly aware that Ryan Tubridy is a soft touch interviewer lacking the guile and skill to ask and pursue tough questions where they are merited . This is a couple who will do anything to court the media and muster public support to thier own gain. A couple who pass the blame on to everyone but themselves for the "abduction"(an abduction in which Columbo could not have solved because there is zero evidence of an abduction), not the fact that they left their children unattended while they wined and dined with friends, and now they have been given a prime time slot on RTE to plug their book and gain the love of the nation


http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/friday-13th-may-mccanns-scheduled-to-appear-on-late-late-show/


The Portugese and British investigators didn't believe the Mcanns Story,Their conclusion was that the abduction scenario was impossible and that Madeline died by cause of accident in the appartment.

I have a couple of other questions Which Ryan could ask them?

Why Did the specially trained cadaver sniffer dogs, flown in from the Uk detect the presence of a dead body in your appartment , and in your rental car? Were those dogs lying?Were they incompetent fools like you made the portugese police out to be?

Why do you imply that the "Madeline Fund" is a charity, It is a private limited company? How much do you spend on your legal expenses ,
, lawsuits against people trying to tarnish your brand name, and on your own personal expenses?

Why didn't you answer the 48 police questions asked you by the police, they seemed like pretty reasonable and straight forward questions ?I can;t spot any trick questions

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/48-Questions-Kate-McCann-Faced-from-Portugese-Police/Article/200808115070874




Some more questions

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





This is most dangerous and predictable question(s) that the DLB will ask them, which will be pre rehearsed and executed with aplomb by team mcann



"What do you say to those people that say you might have something to do..../know what happened to Madeline...."

Cue emotion from Kate Mcann , and RTE camera zooming in our Gerrys hand squeezing hers , and so on

And Tubridy ending the interview with deep sorrow etched on his face, wishing them well and every success in the future, and how he can't imagine what they are going through etc





http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=sick/sick0006.gif




If they were not a well off couple and had not of whipped this into a media frenzy, this couple would have been rightfully behind bars to this day.


Do you think they should be given the platform to rally the compassion of the public, by being given an easy ride by Tubridy and prime time slot by RTE ,to plug their book and themselves and put forward a view which is contrary to Every police force involved in the case, man, woman and canine and I think that majority of people as well.

Don't think being on tubridy will change peoples views, I believe the couple anyway.
Its fashionable to not believe them, but commonsense says they are speaking the truth.

PeterIanStaker

Kate McCann has a lovely tan at the moment.

I guess it's because she's been lying in the Sun all week.

danmoz

There are also conflicting accounts of when the police were first notified.

I believe Kate Mccann claims they phoned the police at 22:50. Other sources, (and Amaral I think) claim the first call came at 23:50, with the police arriving within 10 minutes. At 00:01, the British press (The Telegraph) were already reporting Madeleines disappearance.

Even if they were called at 22:50, the press reporting it within an hour still seems ridiculously quick.

There is a very strong possibility the media were called before the police.

Given the Mccanns high profile in the media from day one, any case brought against the Mccanns would be prejudiced because of this and likely to collape immediately resulting in a mistrial.

Take into account the people who jumped on the bandwagon; Gordon Brown personally getting involved, an audience with the Pope, Richard Branson,etc etc, it would cause a lot of embrassment if the Mccanns turned out to be responsible.

For those reasons, in a way, it's easier to just ignore it.

A lot of people seem to live in a black and white world and believe that no evidence must mean no crime. That's simply not true. Some crimes are sloppy, some are methodical, some crimnals are caught, others are never caught. No evidence could simply mean they covered their tracks. Let's not forget OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder despite the evidence against him. He was later found guilty at a civil case. He then went on to write a 'fictional' book about how he committed the crime. In this black and white world some people seem to adhere to, how does that compute? Is OJ guilty or innocent?

There is no evidence of an abduction, yet people are happy to believe this despite the only people pushing this theory are the Mccanns, the police have never believed this and it was only because of poltiical pressure a description of this abductor (based on Jane Tanners sighting) was released.

That sighting alone is the sole 'evidence' for an abduction, yet she changed her description of him dramatically. Originally he was caucasian with short brown hair, carrying a blanket. Later he was 'mediterranean', with dark skin, long black hair, a moustache and carrying a girl in pyjamas.

Based on that alone, how can anyone buy the Mccanns and Tapas 9 version of events over the British and Portugese police' belief there was an accident and the body disposed of? That isn't speculation, that was what they actually believed and the point at which the Mccanns wanted to leave Portugal.

Kevin Duffy

mcwhirter wrote: »

I believe the couple anyway.
Its fashionable to not believe them, but commonsense says they are speaking the truth.

No, common sense says that nobody outside a very, very small group of people knows if they are speaking the truth, or what really happened. I'd say a maximum of 10 people in the world, maybe as few as 2. The rest is speculation.

mcwhirter

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

No, common sense says that nobody outside a very, very small group of people knows if they are speaking the truth, or what really happened. I'd say a maximum of 10 people in the world, maybe as few as 2. The rest is speculation.

The british press stopped the real truth coming out, still believe the parents though.

DerekWaters

mcwhirter wrote: »

The british press stopped the real truth coming out, still believe the parents though.

I personally choose to believe the findings of the two police forces and the dog team over a group of people who have changed their stories at least three times and who refuse to answer further police questions. The police will re-open the case if the McCanns and the other tapas 9 agree to further questions - they have refused.

danmoz

Let's face it, those statements from the Mccanns and Tapas 9 wouldn't stand up in court.

There's an interview with Amaral here that is of interest; http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html

Amaral wrote:

Question: What are the elements that allow you to accuse [in your book], with such conviction, Maddie's parents of lying to the whole planet?

There are several of them. For a start, just like their friends, their witness statements and their depositions reveal a major level of imprecision, of incoherence and contradiction. Then there's the smell of a cadaver that has been confirmed by the detection dogs and the existence of blood traces behind the sofa in the apartment, which was confirmed by preliminary analyses. One can presume that the little girl fell behind that piece of furniture, maybe due to tranquilisers that her parents gave her regularly, as they later admitted. The same for the finding of odours and traces of blood in the vehicle that was rented by the McCanns, three weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. It was the only vehicle among eleven that retained the dogs' attention. There is equally the witness statement of an Irish couple that states they saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the evening of the events. Finally, there's Kate McCann's fingerprint on the window of Madeleine's bedroom, which clearly indicates that she opened that window, undoubtedly to make believe in the abduction theory, while stating that the window was already open when she arrived on the spot at 10 p.m., the time at which she noticed Madeleine's disappearance and raised the alarm.

Question: That's your truth, which is not supported by any evidence...

That's not my truth, those are the conclusions of an investigation that lasted for fourteen months, carried out by over one hundred policemen and experts. Concerning the facts, the results indicate that the analysed samples coincided with Madeleine's DNA profile in 75%.

Question: Why are all those indications not enough evidence?

Because those results needed to be confirmed and it would have been necessary to carry out other investigations based on this data. Undoubtedly the last ones. One might, for example, perfectly imagine that Maddie's body was concealed in a freezer between the 3rd and the 27th of May. All of this should have been minutely checked. Well, that was the moment when the will to archive the process emerged and I was removed. That the case was actually smothered.

[snip]

Question: Those are particularly serious accusations, and you carry an enormous responsibility if by hazard the parents' theory is proved...

It won't be proved. Maddie is dead, and her parents know it. Their behaviour proves it. After having set the scene for abduction, they immediately passed the abduction theory to the media, without even accepting another possibility. Concerning that, do you know many parents who, as their daughter is supposedly abducted, hired a communications chief before hiring a lawyer? I also remember a statement that Kate McCann made to the media, only a few days after the drama: "In two years' time, we'll still be meeting to search for Maddie". How could she be that categorical? Finally, why did they leave Portugal almost immediately after being placed under investigation, while the investigations that they financed with their fund continued?

Question: Why would they lie and display such cynicism?

Because they made a mistake in leaving their children alone and were completely run over by the media attention that they brought onto themselves. Having said that, the simulation of an abduction is something that is usual in these type of cases. The statistics prove it. Since 1960 until today, in England – but they are very close, no matter what Western country – 1528 children were found murdered. Eighty-four percent of them were murdered by their parents and even 96% if we widen to the persons close to them. In the vast majority of these cases, the parents made up an abduction story.

El Weirdo

danmoz wrote: »

Given the Mccanns high profile in the media from day one, any case brought against the Mccanns would be prejudiced because of this and likely to collape immediately resulting in a mistrial.

This.

People are asking why the McCanns would continue to court the media if they were guilty of something. One could put forward the theory that because the case is so high-profile and divides opinion as much as it does (as can been seen in this thread alone), that it is to their benefit if the case was re-opened and charges brought against them.

maebee

Breaking news on Sky:

Kate & Gerry McCann write to Prime Minister asking for "Independent, transparent & comprehensive review of their daughter's disappearance.

This is nothing more than publicity seeking for Kate's book, imo. They know that the British Prime Minister cannot do this. It is out of his jurisdiction. They had their chance to request a re-opening of the case and didn't do so.

danmoz

It's not only that, it's psychological. People who repeat a lie eventually start believing it themselves. Keeping the pretence up also keeps them distracted from whatever may have really happened. The moment they stop living the lie, then reality hits home. All hypothetical of course, in case anyone is feeling litgious. :rolleyes:

We only have to look at the Quy case to see how people can react;

BBC wrote:

Quy, of Birkdale, Merseyside, had kept up an 18-month pretence that his wife had just "upped and left him" before he was finally arrested by police.


The facade included interviews with journalists and a television appeal with Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan on ITV's This Morning.

He even told their two-year-old son Jack and four-year-old Robyn, his wife's daughter from a previous relationship, that "Mummy had run away but would be back soon".
Quy had in fact killed his wife and butchered her body after she threatened to divorce him in December 1998.

Detectives believe Quy became obsessed with the thrill of having an audience watching his "grief", and was carried away at suddenly being the centre of attention.

DC Geoff Sloan wrote:

He added: “I always thought he was the one who killed her. I didn’t believe him when he said he was innocent for one second. It always frustrated me when the Visiter published an interview with him because it fuelled his lies.

“He was so wrapped up in the notoriety and the fame that I think he started to believe it himself. He loved the attention.”

As Mitchell told the world how police had unfairly branded him a murderer and were wasting public money on the investigation, Sloan and his team never had doubts about eventually pinning Quy down

Sound familiar? Had the police not taken a gamble and charged him even though the only evidence was circumstantial, it's very likely he would have got away with it. Had he kept his mouth shut (as the Mccanns have), the onus would be on the police to prove his guilt, and with no hard evidence, I fail to see how the prosecution would have succeeded.

Kate Mccann refused to answer any questions put forth by the police. This is known as 'playing harball'. If you're accused of a crime your solicitor will give you the option of keeping quiet, and if you're fairly confident there's no evidence against you, it's not a bad idea. It's then down to the police to prove you're guilty, by keeping quiet you give them absolutely nothing to work with. There's no reason for someone who is innocent to not co-operate.

Kate Mccann states in her book that the Portugese police offered her a deal if she confessed there had been an accident and they disposed of the body. It was in The Sun literally two or three days ago. At the time it was revealed that Gerry Mccann's sister leaked to the media that Kate had been offered a deal, yet if you go dig up the newspaper articles at the time Kate's lawyer categorically states that there was no deal offered and the reports in the media had been a 'misunderstanding'. So who is lying? The Mcanns, who claim a deal was offered, or the lawyer who claims no deal was offered? That in itself should raise questions about the authenticity of her book.

danmoz

Oh, and those people who pointed out that the Mccanns are giving all the royalties / profits of the book to the Madeleine Fund to help in their search. The 'royalties' (or profits depending which media source you read) would suggest extra income they receive from the book, ie, the serialisation rights for The Sun, etc and from book sales. That says nothing of the multi-million pound deal they signed. It's the equivalent of Tony Blair promising to donate the profits of his book to the British Legion when he's already been paid millions in advance.

theboss80

So with the McCanns now after asking the British PM for an independant review of the case files will there be a conclusion or whats likely to happen now? Maybe there is new evidence now that they have come accross?

Sir Oxman

maebee wrote: »

And if my 3 year old asked me where was I when she & her brother were crying the night before I would ask myself some questions. I most certainly would not repeat my same childcare arrangements for the next 2 nights.

+1

Considering she was heard crying for well over an hour, I wonder what happened to the McCanns 'half-hour' checks that night?

bad2dabone

i'd be heartbroken if my child asked me that question. Maybe i'm soft but I can't bear the thoughts of her being left to cry alone for an extended period of time

danmoz

theboss80 wrote: »

So with the McCanns now after asking the British PM for an independant review of the case files will there be a conclusion or whats likely to happen now? Maybe there is new evidence now that they have come accross?

If there was new evidence they wouldn't be asking. It's all just pretence. If they were genuinely that bothered they'd ask the Portugese police to reopen the case. Instead they use the Fund money to hire dodgy Private Investigators, psychic mediums and snake oil salesmen with devices made out of tinfoil and string that can supposedly detect dead bodies (but no one is allowed to see the device). Oh, and pay their legal fees.

You have to ask why she refused to answer the questions. The only reason anyone does that is in order to not incriminate themselves. That's the only reason. It should be impossible for an innocent person to incriminate themselves

Sir Oxman

theboss80 wrote: »

So with the McCanns now after asking the British PM for an independant review of the case files will there be a conclusion or whats likely to happen now? Maybe there is new evidence now that they have come accross?

I'm not completely sure but a review is not the same as a re-opening.
For instance, I believe the McCanns and their friends cannot be questioned again.

EDIT: I see danmoz has answered above

maebee

gambiaman wrote: »

+1

Considering she was heard crying for well over an hour, I wonder what happened to the McCanns 'half-hour' checks that night?

Well spotted gm. When asked by the PJ to provide a timeline for the events of the evening of May 3rd, the Tapas 9 "scribbled on the cover of Madeleine's coloring book "

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/kate-mccann-blog-entry.html

theboss80

danmoz wrote: »

If there was new evidence they wouldn't be asking. It's all just pretence. If they were genuinely that bothered they'd ask the Portugese police to reopen the case. Instead they use the Fund money to hire dodgy Private Investigators, psychic mediums and snake oil salesmen with devices made out of tinfoil and string that can supposedly detect dead bodies (but no one is allowed to see the device). Oh, and pay their legal fees.

You have to ask why she refused to answer the questions. The only reason anyone does that is in order to not incriminate themselves. That's the only reason. It should be impossible for an innocent person to incriminate themselves

They asked for a joint review of both police forces files.

AskMyChocolate

mcwhirter wrote: »

Don't think being on tubridy will change peoples views, I believe the couple anyway.
Its fashionable to not believe them, but commonsense says they are speaking the truth.

I have no idea what is fashionable, but commonsense says they are not speaking the truth. Now, what they are not speaking the truth about, is a whole different ballgame.

danmoz

theboss80 wrote: »

They asked for a joint review of both police forces files.

What's a review of the existing files going to reveal? If the British or Portugese police had more they'd be charged. They haven't, they hit a dead end. Reviewing the existing files isn't going to bring anything new to light.

Reopening the case is a different matter, it means the police can question them and the Tapas 9 further, ask them to do the reconstruction, etc. Oddly enough, they don't want any of that.

It's utterly absurd we simply take the Mccanns word for what happened on the basis of a questionable sighting by Jane Tanner. If the police had simply taken the word of Mitchell Quy when he protested his innocence, he'd never have been convicted of his wifes murder. Is this really how crimes should be solved these days? By simply believing what potential suspects tell us?

The real problem is that it became too political. Too many people jumped right on the Mccann bandwagon in their support. Gerry Mccann personally made nine phone calls to Gordon Brown whom pressured the Portugese to authorise Mccann to release the description of the so called abductor, Clarence Mitchell was assigned as their spokesperson, the Pope gave them an audience, Richard Branson donated money and paid their flights, etc, The Sun started the Find Madeleine campaign, and so on and so forth. There would be too much egg on too many faces if the truth turned out they were involved. It suits too many people to just let it run its course. They haven't even faced charges of neglect, yet three weeks ago a college professor was arrested for neglect because he and his wife went for a meal, leaving their 15yr old daughter at home. She threw a party, one of her friends took some drugs and died. Now her parents face charges of neglect. Yet the Mccanns, they're apparently infallible.

K-9

I suppose how any of us, if our child was kidnapped would run to RTE first?

The other side of it is the police may well advice you to get as much media exposure as possible.

This was Sky News though, not Potruguese TV.

I'm with danmoz here. To me, they covered up that the apartment was unlocked, that the 3 toddlers were left home alone, that they cried regularly etc. etc.

They did feel guilty, hence Kate's initial response "we failed them" or similar, human response.

So, "no, we didn't", seek excuses, maybe it was an abduction, kidnap and forceable entry?

Turns out it couldn't have been a forceable entry and they have to divulge that the apartment was left unlocked.

They can't back track much more because of all the media exposure, it makes them look more guilty.

dark crystal

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I have no idea what is fashionable, but commonsense says they are not speaking the truth. Now, what they are not speaking the truth about, is a whole different ballgame.

I just don't know....for me, it's a gut feeling, more than anything else. I honestly don't think they had anything to do with her disappearance.

Now, when Shannon Matthews went missing, I had the very same gut feeling that her mother Karen had guilt written all over her. It's all in the eyes for me.

Can't explain it, but I'm absolutely convinced the McCanns are innocent.

danmoz

K-9 wrote: »

I suppose how any of us, if our child was kidnapped would run to RTE first?

The other side of it is the police may well advice you to get as much media exposure as possible.

This was Sky News though, not Potruguese TV.

I'm with danmoz here. To me, they covered up that the apartment was unlocked, that the 3 toddlers were left home alone, that they cried regularly etc. etc.

They did feel guilty, hence Kate's initial response "we failed them" or similar, human response.

So, "no, we didn't", seek excuses, maybe it was an abduction, kidnap and forceable entry?

Turns out it couldn't have been a forceable entry and they have to divulge that the apartment was left unlocked.

They can't back track much more because of all the media exposure, it makes them look more guilty.

that's just it, the Portugese police were furious the media had been alerted, they kept telling the Mccanns not to talk to the media, and the Mccanns defied them constantly. Amaral believes the media knew before the police did. In what world do you contact the media before the police if your child is missing?

PrincessLola

I think most of the people criticising the McCanns on here are just using the 'hindsight bias', its all well and good to criticise now after the event, but I don't really think they saw that coming, no one did, except the abductor of course.. Its tragic but the parents are not soley to blame

I don't believe they murdered their daughter, their is no evidence they did.

AskMyChocolate

danmoz wrote: »

There are also conflicting accounts of when the police were first notified.

I believe Kate Mccann claims they phoned the police at 22:50. Other sources, (and Amaral I think) claim the first call came at 23:50, with the police arriving within 10 minutes. At 00:01, the British press (The Telegraph) were already reporting Madeleines disappearance.

Even if they were called at 22:50, the press reporting it within an hour still seems ridiculously quick.

There is a very strong possibility the media were called before the police.

Given the Mccanns high profile in the media from day one, any case brought against the Mccanns would be prejudiced because of this and likely to collape immediately resulting in a mistrial.

Take into account the people who jumped on the bandwagon; Gordon Brown personally getting involved, an audience with the Pope, Richard Branson,etc etc, it would cause a lot of embrassment if the Mccanns turned out to be responsible.

For those reasons, in a way, it's easier to just ignore it.

A lot of people seem to live in a black and white world and believe that no evidence must mean no crime. That's simply not true. Some crimes are sloppy, some are methodical, some crimnals are caught, others are never caught. No evidence could simply mean they covered their tracks. Let's not forget OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder despite the evidence against him. He was later found guilty at a civil case. He then went on to write a 'fictional' book about how he committed the crime. In this black and white world some people seem to adhere to, how does that compute? Is OJ guilty or innocent?

There is no evidence of an abduction, yet people are happy to believe this despite the only people pushing this theory are the Mccanns, the police have never believed this and it was only because of poltiical pressure a description of this abductor (based on Jane Tanners sighting) was released.

That sighting alone is the sole 'evidence' for an abduction, yet she changed her description of him dramatically. Originally he was caucasian with short brown hair, carrying a blanket. Later he was 'mediterranean', with dark skin, long black hair, a moustache and carrying a girl in pyjamas.

Based on that alone, how can anyone buy the Mccanns and Tapas 9 version of events over the British and Portugese police' belief there was an accident and the body disposed of? That isn't speculation, that was what they actually believed and the point at which the Mccanns wanted to leave Portugal.

Yup. No idea what happened in the McCanns' case, but if you subscribe to the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, then Al Capone was a mild-mannered Chicago accountant who got sloppy with his tax returns.

mystic86

PrincessLola wrote: »

I think most of the people criticising the McCanns on here are just using the 'hindsight bias', its all well and good to criticise now after the event, but I don't really think they saw that coming, no one did, except the abductor of course.. Its tragic but the parents are not soley to blame

I don't believe they murdered their daughter, their is no evidence they did.

what abductor? there was none.

there is no evidence they did? well we don't have video footage if thats what ye want, but then again we don't have 'proof' there was an abductor...

what about those dogs that gave 4 strong indications of a corpse in the bedroom and flat...

dark crystal

mystic86 wrote: »

what abductor? there was none.

Your username suits you alright! How can you say there was no abductor....were you there??