Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Options
1…3031333536…135

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    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.

    Another one with blinkers on. People aren't simply jumping to conclusions here. Why not read all of the witness statements, all of the case files and Amarals book, then you can pick out the inconsistencies, the contradictions and the discrepencies in the Mccanns and Tapas 9 versin of events, then form your own educated conclusion? How many times does it need to be said? The British and Portugese police have never believed there was an abduction, the only people who have persisted with that are the Mccanns.

    Read Amarals interview;
    Amaral wrote:
    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%.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the word of the Mccanns holds more water than the findings of over a hundred British and Portugese police? If your child was to go missing, who would you put your faith in to find them? The Mccanns or the police?

    You say there's no evidence they did it, what exactly does that prove? As I stated two pages ago there was also no evidence Mitchell Quy killed his wife. Do you genuinely believe that if there's no evidence then a crime hasn't been comitted? Well that works both ways, because there's no evidence there was an abduction either.


  • Options
    #963
    mystic86
    Registered Users Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭mystic86


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Your username suits you alright! How can you say there was no abductor....were you there??

    how do you know they didnt kill her, were you?????


  • Options
    #964
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    mystic86 wrote: »
    how do you know they didnt kill her, were you?????

    No, that's why I don't pretend to know what happened either way.

    You stated there was no abductor - you can't just state that without having been there that night. No one can.


  • Options
    #965
    Tigerbaby
    Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Tigerbaby


    and the Irish Family The Smiths who identified the person they saw carrying a "sleeping" child away that night ?

    this stinks. that poor kid. FFS!!!


  • Options
    #966
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    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.
    There's no evidence of an abduction either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    mystic86
    Registered Users Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭mystic86


    im going on facts, ur going on some sort of wanting to see only good in people,

    as i said what about the dogs ? gave strong signals in several locations in her room and apartment of a corpse


  • Options
    #968
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    Another one with blinkers on. People aren't simply jumping to conclusions here.


    Are you seriously suggesting that the word of the Mccanns holds more water than the findings of over a hundred British and Portugese police? If your child was to go missing, who would you put your faith in to find them? The Mccanns or the police?

    You say there's no evidence they did it, what exactly does that prove? As I stated two pages ago there was also no evidence Mitchell Quy killed his wife. Do you genuinely believe that if there's no evidence then a crime hasn't been comitted? Well that works both ways, because there's no evidence there was an abduction either.

    You quote the example of Mitchell Quy - how about the example of Lindy Chamberlain?

    She was convicted on similar circumstancial DNA evidence and was later found to be totally innocent.

    I doubt she or her family would have much faith in the findings of the investigating police force, after her wrongful conviction.


  • Options
    #969
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    Tigerbaby wrote: »
    and the Irish Family The Smiths who identified the person they saw carrying a "sleeping" child away that night ?

    this stinks. that poor kid. FFS!!!

    That'd be The Smiths who described a male caucasian with short brown hair, about 170cm, beige pants and a dark top?

    Which fits with Jane Tanners first description of seeing a caucasian male with short brown hair, about 170cm, beige pants and a dark top?

    Then Martin Smith saw Gerry Mccann coming off the plane and claims he had a flashback to that night and firmly believes the man he saw that night was Gerry Mccann.

    Then Jane Tanner changed her description to a 'dark skinned' man of mediterranean origin with long black hair and a moustache.

    It's one thing to remember details, it's something else for the 'abductor' to completely change his race.


  • Options
    #970
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    mystic86 wrote: »
    im going on facts, ur going on some sort of wanting to see only good in people,

    as i said what about the dogs ? gave strong signals in several locations in her room and apartment of a corpse

    Going on what facts? The facts you are going by clearly don't hold enough weight to warrant the McCanns being charged with any crime.

    If I'm going on wanting to see only the good in people, perhaps you are going by only seeing the bad in people.


  • Options
    #971
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Double post


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    mystic86
    Registered Users Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭mystic86


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Going on what facts? The facts you are going by clearly don't hold enough weight to warrant the McCanns being charged with any crime.

    If I'm going on wanting to see only the good in people, perhaps you are going by only seeing the bad in people.

    no, not enough to charge them, thats why they werent charged.


  • Options
    #973
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    dark crystal wrote: »
    You quote the example of Mitchell Quy - how about the example of Lindy Chamberlain?

    She was convicted on similar circumstancial DNA evidence and was later found to be totally innocent.

    I doubt she or her family would have much faith in the findings of the investigating police force, after her wrongful conviction.

    you mean Lindy Chamberlain who was convicted on primitive DNA evidence where the babies blood actually turned out not to be blood at all but something else? Why don't you tell us the findings of the inquests? Shall I? The first they concluded it was possibly a dingo. The second they concluded she did it. The third they delivered an open finding. There's going to be another inquest this year. In other words, the verdict is still out on whether she did it or not.


  • Options
    #974
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Going on what facts? The facts you are going by clearly don't hold enough weight to warrant the McCanns being charged with any crime.

    If I'm going on wanting to see only the good in people, perhaps you are going by only seeing the bad in people.

    Or maybe, just maybe, he's going on the findings of the British and Portugese police. What are you going by?


  • Options
    #975
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    there is just too much conjecture and the details are too murky and skewed for me to be convinced either way if madeline was abducted or if she was the victim of an accident that was covered up. I don't believe she was killed by her folks in a malicious way. I don't trust the McCanns though, there is just something that really doesn't sit right with me about them. I feel very sorry for the twins in all this too. It's a very sad case, made worse by how easily it could all have been avoided.


  • Options
    #976
    Tigerbaby
    Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Tigerbaby


    danmoz wrote: »
    That'd be The Smiths who described a male caucasian with short brown hair, about 170cm, beige pants and a dark top?

    Which fits with Jane Tanners first description of seeing a caucasian male with short brown hair, about 170cm, beige pants and a dark top?

    Then Martin Smith saw Gerry Mccann coming off the plane and claims he had a flashback to that night and firmly believes the man he saw that night was Gerry Mccann.

    Then Jane Tanner changed her description to a 'dark skinned' man of mediterranean origin with long black hair and a moustache.

    It's one thing to remember details, it's something else for the 'abductor' to completely change his race.

    I am in agreement with you. Why weren't the Smiths called back to Portugal? Why not an identity parade? what a sorry sick tale. good to be friends with Gordon Brown eh?


  • Options
    #977
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    The Paxman interview with Gerry McCann is interesting - available on youtube.

    McCann reminded me of some other people, but draw your own conclusions.


  • Options
    #978
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    Or maybe, just maybe, he's going on the findings of the British and Portugese police. What are you going by?

    You mean the findings that resulted in the McCann's being released without any charges at all?

    I repeat - no one, at this point, can state catagorically what did or didn't happen to Madeleine that night. It's all just pure conjecture. To say there was no abductor is an opinion, not a fact.


  • Options
    #979
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    bad2dabone wrote: »
    there is just too much conjecture and the details are too murky and skewed for me to be convinced either way if madeline was abducted or if she was the victim of an accident that was covered up. I don't believe she was killed by her folks in a malicious way. I don't trust the McCanns though, there is just something that really doesn't sit right with me about them. I feel very sorry for the twins in all this too. It's a very sad case, made worse by how easily it could all have been avoided.


    It's not conjecture though, is it? It's the result of a fourteen month police investigation by British and Portugese police. It's not some random guy on the internet trying to convince you they did it, it's the conclusion of those police forces they were involved but there simply isn't enough hard evidence against them. No evidence does not equal no crime.


  • Options
    #980
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    dark crystal wrote: »
    You mean the findings that resulted in the McCann's being released without any charges at all?

    I repeat - no one, at this point, can state catagorically what did or didn't happen to Madeleine that night. It's all just pure conjecture. To say there was no abductor is an opinion, not a fact.


    so, basically, your conclusion is: Schroedingers Cat?


  • Options
    #981
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    you mean Lindy Chamberlain who was convicted on primitive DNA evidence where the babies blood actually turned out not to be blood at all but something else? Why don't you tell us the findings of the inquests? Shall I? The first they concluded it was possibly a dingo. The second they concluded she did it. The third they delivered an open finding. There's going to be another inquest this year. In other words, the verdict is still out on whether she did it or not.

    She was fully exonerated of the crime and awarded substantial damages. The exoneration was based on a rejection of the two key points of the prosecution's case—particularly the alleged foetal haemoglobin evidence—and of bias and invalid assumptions made during the initial trial.

    Do you believe she is guilty as well?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #982
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    so, basically, your conclusion is: Schroedingers Cat?

    Yep, that's my conclusion alright. Well done you.


  • Options
    #983
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Do you believe she is guilty as well?

    I don't know the case, but from what you say it sounds as though it was at least investigated properly in the first place.


  • Options
    #984
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    dark crystal wrote: »
    She was fully exonerated of the crime and awarded substantial damages. The exoneration was based on a rejection of the two key points of the prosecution's case—particularly the alleged foetal haemoglobin evidence—and of bias and invalid assumptions made during the initial trial.

    Do you believe she is guilty as well?

    What precisely, is your point? OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. He was then found guilty in a civil case. He then wrote a 'fictional' book about how he did it. Do you believe him innocent or guilty?

    See, I can use the strawman argument too.


  • Options
    #985
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Yep, that's my conclusion alright. Well done you.

    I've yet to see any intelligent input from you, you seem quite happy to believe people who are potential suspects. Bizarre.

    Meanwhile, some of us live in the real world, one where people actually commit terrible crimes and can, and do, get away with them.

    Here's how it stands;

    A girl is missing - Fact.

    A fourteen month investigation by British and Portugese police concludes with the firm belief the parents were invovled. - Fact

    There is no evidence of an abduction. - Fact

    What are you bringing to the table?


  • Options
    #986
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    What precisely, is your point? OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. He was then found guilty in a civil case. He then wrote a 'fictional' book about how he did it. Do you believe him innocent or guilty?

    See, I can use the strawman argument too.

    My point - again - is that there is no evidence to suggest what happened either way. NO ONE knows what happened for sure that night. You may think you know for sure, going by what you have read, but you cannot say for sure. If there was any real concrete evidence, DNA or otherwise, they would have been held and charged at least, just as Simpson was.


    No evidence does not equal no crime.

    Nor, of course, does it indicate guilt!


  • Options
    #987
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    I've yet to see any intelligent input from you, you seem quite happy to believe people who are potential suspects. Bizarre.

    Meanwhile, some of us live in the real world, one where people actually commit terrible crimes and can, and do, get away with them.

    Here's how it stands;

    A girl is missing - Fact.

    A fourteen month investigation by British and Portugese police concludes with the firm belief the parents were invovled. - Fact

    There is no evidence of an abduction. - Fact

    What are you bringing to the table?

    An open mind.

    Unlike you, I happen to believe that the McCanns are innocent until proven otherwise. I don't profess to know whether or not they killed their daughter or not.

    Intelligent outpout - really?? You are skating close to the wind there, insulting someone because they happen to hold a different viewpoint. Is it so much more intelligent to point the finger at people who might just be entirely innocent?


  • Options
    #988
    endabob1
    Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭endabob1


    It’s important to have an open mind for sure, but it’s also important to take the facts as facts and the only piece of “evidence” that supports an abduction theory, is Jane Tanners sighting which has a couple of pretty big flaws
    1- It contradicts, Gerry McCann’s statement & the chap he was talking to.
    2- It was also changed from her initial statement, the description of the abductor changed and
    3- In her second statement she remembers much more about the child, colour & detailing of pyjamas etc.. This flies in the face of all known logic that you lose recollection over time.
    My theory for what it’s worth is that the most likely scenario is the sedation one, since they admitted to using it in the past;
    The statement from the neighbour of crying in the prior evenings
    The statement of Madeliene’s questioning of Kate about where her Mummy & Daddy were when the twins were crying;
    The twins not waking on the night of the disappearance despite all the commotion;
    Maybe they upped the dose a little to make sure the kids didn’t wake and it went horribly wrong, after that and the body disposal etc, I’m not sure but there is more evidence imho to support a sedation gone wrong theory than the very flimsy abduction.
    It reeks of cover up, the initial shutter story (staged by Kate), the farcical changing statements, the refusal to co-operate, the involvement of media, to the point of hiring press officers within hours.


  • Options
    #989
    homeOwner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 779 ✭✭✭homeOwner


    Some really good debate going on here. It has awakened my interest in the case and I'll be watching TLLS on friday night for sure.

    endabob1 wrote: »
    My theory for what it’s worth is that the most likely scenario is the sedation one, since they admitted to using it in the past;
    The statement from the neighbour of crying in the prior evenings
    The statement of Madeliene’s questioning of Kate about where her Mummy & Daddy were when the twins were crying;

    Are there any links to where Kate admitted sedating the kids? I dont recall ever reading about this, it was speculated by the media but did she actually admit it?

    If the kids were heard crying the previous nights then surely that would suggest they weren't sedated on those nights.


  • Options
    #990
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,924 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    The Paxman interview with Gerry McCann is interesting - available on youtube.

    McCann reminded me of some other people, but draw your own conclusions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

    I don't know if they had anything to do with it or not. But just look at the man's smile in this vid. Creepy, no sign of a smile in the eyes at all. Just an observation. Doesn't mean he's guilty of anything, but a profiler might interpret many things from his demeanour and language.

    But what do I know? Only my gut instinct I'm afraid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #991
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    AskMyChocolate wrote: »
    Yeah, but you haven't really answered my question there chief. Are you the McCanns' lawyer? I don't see how new evidence could come to light if the authorities are no longer willing to question the McCanns, however willing the McCanns may be to subject themselves to that questioning.

    Also, you've cherry-picked what you want. Have you an agenda?

    The portuguese authorities (quite rightly, however cynically) don't want to waste any more money or resources looking for one child in what is , as you say, an extremely "complex case" with unwilling witnesses, when the money could be better spent looking for children whose parents and friends will do anything in their power to assist the authorities in getting the child back.

    Btw, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and how to extract aluminium from Bauxite, were all developed by interested people in "the comfort of their bedrooms";)

    I'm sure the authorities have done everything in their power. Are you seriously questioning their ability to know their job?

    If you were reading this thread earlier you would have seen my posts explaining why refusing to speak to the police does not necessarily imply guilt. Which seems to be a difficult concept for people on here to understand.

    Whatever about developing a software company from your home. Conducting a police investigation is not done from home. Ridiculous comparison.

    AskMyChocolate wrote: »
    Oh, so you do have an agenda. It's now the fault of the tenant upstairs that the kids were left alone? Tell me, are the Smith family just a bunch of junkies from Kilinarden?

    What is my agenda exactly? I'm just talking about it like anyone else. No big conspiracy here even if you would like there to be. I made one small observation and never implied anything anything about it. I also said it's not something I personally would do. You were the one who read into what I said. Maybe stop finding meaning in things that are not there?
    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.

    Nor would I. It doesn't take away from the validity of the point I made though does it?

    It seems some people are trying to imply something else from those two posts and use it as a stick to beat me with. As I said to AskMyChocolate don't let what you've decided my posts meant to cloud their actual rather simple meaning which is:
    1. I think listening to a child cry for over an hour and not looking into it is unusual. - Note I didn't say sinister or imply any blame.
    2. It is not something I would do myself.

    Strikes me as using a pre-conceived notion to take greater meaning out of something. Which is what I think a lot of people are doing when it comes to the Madeline case.

    I've seen a lot of statements of fact about various intimate details of the case but precious few sources (I'm taking about primary sources here not opinionated one-sided blogs). I would safely say there is a LOT of misinformation out there on both sides.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement