Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

ISDW

danmoz wrote: »

It was, was it not? After they phoned the police of course, which was anywhere between nearly 1-2hrs after Kate Mccann discovered her missing. Amaral says in his book that when the police arrived the place was like a circus and numerous people had been in and out and contaminated the scene.

Then how come Kate was able to wash the cuddly toy?

danmoz

As for those banging on that Amaral is a convicted liar, that may be the case but you'd do well to remember that the Mccanns took him to court and sued him for libel over the comments he made about them in his book and THEY LOST. In regards to this case, he's been proven not to be a liar.

_feedback_

ISDW wrote: »

It is an answer, obviously not the one that you want to hear, but yep, it is an answer.

Was Gerry in the room when she washed it? Do you know that?

When was it washed? When were the pr people hired? I don't know the answers to those questions, I'm not being facetious, was it the same time?

She washed the toy five days afterwards. When questioned about it, she said it was dirty. She washed what could have been a crucial piece of evidence (if an "abductor" put it on a high shelf).

I don't know when they seeked advise about the media, but considering they contacted them before the police, I'd imagine it was before the five days.

ISDW

elviscostello wrote: »

She washed the toy five days afterwards. When questioned about it, she said it was dirty. She washed what could have been a crucial piece of evidence (if an "abductor" put it on a high shelf).

I don't know when they seeked advise about the media, but considering they contacted them before the police, I'd imagine it was before the five days.

Again, proper question, not being funny, but how did she have access to the cuddly toy if it was Madeleines? Why did the police not have it in an evidence bag, if it was suspected that the abductor may possibly have touched it?

Its those kind of inconsistencies that puzzle me, just as it is inconsitencies with the McCanns that puzzle other people. There is a so much about this thing that just doesn't make sense.

danmoz

Kess73 wrote: »

The published police reports show that an investigation unit began work within 30 minutes of the call and that when the police arrived the room in question was full of people.

All Portugese and Spanish airports were informed within that 30 minutes as were police in towns along the Spain/Portugal border.

The police forces in both Spain and Portugal have confirmed this in the reports and the airports have also confirmed that this happened.

Now the McCanns or rather the mother of Kate was talking to Sky within a day to a day and a half of the child going missing claiming the police did not seal off airports and what not, but unless the Spanish police are also lying along with each airport lying about getting the report and the times they got it, it would seem to be just anopther part of the McCann smear campaign against the police which started pretty much straight away.

It's more than that, The Telegraph were reporting Madeleine missing at 00:01GMT 4/5/2007, which if the reports are to be believed and the call to the police was at 23:50GMT 3/5/2007, is 11minutes after the police were called.

I find it impossible to believe that the British press, in the middle of the nght, had been notified, checked the accuracy of the story, got authorisation from an Editor and published it faster than the police arrived at the scene.

the only logical conclusion is that the press were called before the police.

ISDW: I have no idea why they didn't take the toy. Maybe because initially they thought it was just a missing child until they started investigating further? There's probably an explanation on the mccannfiles but I'd rather go get some lunch than check :P

Kess73

ISDW wrote: »

Again, proper question, not being funny, but how did she have access to the cuddly toy if it was Madeleines? Why did the police not have it in an evidence bag, if it was suspected that the abductor may possibly have touched it?

Its those kind of inconsistencies that puzzle me, just as it is inconsitencies with the McCanns that puzzle other people. There is a so much about this thing that just doesn't make sense.

Would have to go back and look for it, but I am pretty sure that Kate had it with her from the first night with the police having to request it to be given to them to check. And that it was washed after the police requested that they be given the toy.

ISDW

danmoz wrote: »

It's more than that, The Telegraph were reporting Madeleine missing at 00:01GMT 4/5/2007, which if the reports are to be believed and the call to the police was at 23:50GMT 3/5/2007, is 11minutes after the police were called.

I find it impossible to believe that the British press, in the middle of the nght, had been notified, checked the accuracy of the story, got authorisation from an Editor and published it faster than the police arrived at the scene.

the only logical conclusion is that the press were called before the police.

ISDW: I have no idea why they didn't take the toy. Maybe because initially they thought it was just a missing child until they started investigating further? There's probably an explanation on the mccannfiles but I'd rather go get some lunch than check :P

You're late, I'm going to start cooking the dinner soon:rolleyes:

mydearwatson

There's an interesting documentary here focussing on Kate and Gerry McCann a couple of years after Madeleine's disappearance.

In part three, from around 02:40 on, it discusses sightings from three separate witnesses of a "suspicious" man hanging around the apartment. Interesting that the three witnesses have no connection to each other or to the McCanns. Also you'd think he'd have come forward to clear his name, if he was innocent.

I don't think Kate knows what happened to Madeleine - that's only my own opinion though. She comes across to me as naturally quite cold and unlikeable - but honest. She seems geniunely uncomfortable with being in the spotlight. Also, I don't know, I get the impression that she has accepted that Madeleine is probably dead, but that she just wants closure. Whereas on the other hand, Gerry always seems to be insisting that she's still alive and may be found - seems a bit stupidly unrealistic after all this time? And then there were those couple of times he slipped up and referred to whoever "killed" Madeleine? He seems all too comfortable with the media attention, and you get the impression that he has a well-practised "mask" in place.

Also, in my opinion, it would take a complete psychopath to dispose of your own child's body and to carry up the pretence of looking for her for all these years. There are people like that out there, but what are the chances of both husband and wife having the mental capability to do this? Seems impossible that neither would have cracked by now ... to me, it's more believable that (if anything) one of them knows what happened her - not both.

If one of the parents were involved (say Gerry, for arguments sake), it's possible that the whole thing was planned in advance of the holiday. To me, the timeframe just doesn't seem plausible for the child to have died and for the body to be disposed of. So he could have sedated the child (and her siblings) and put her to bed, then given someone a time to come and take her from the bed. In this scenario, he could have been lying about her being there when he carried out his check (he was the last to see her alive, if I'm correct?) This would have given the "abductor" even more time to get away.

Just my own musings ...

ppink

I have been reading this thread with interest.

One thing I find very uncomfortanle is that when I log onto the McCann's website it smacks me in the face looking for money. to me it seems to be set up solely for that purpose rather than for missing children or for Madeline.

Another thing I dont understand is how Kate now comes out with this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-I-believe-kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

I know its the DM but it is a report from the news shows she is now doing. She kept checking them as she thought they were unusually quiet but never got them tested
if it was me that whole hotel would have been tested never mind the kids and the soft toy.

_feedback_

ISDW wrote: »

Again, proper question, not being funny, but how did she have access to the cuddly toy if it was Madeleines? Why did the police not have it in an evidence bag, if it was suspected that the abductor may possibly have touched it?

Its those kind of inconsistencies that puzzle me, just as it is inconsitencies with the McCanns that puzzle other people. There is a so much about this thing that just doesn't make sense.

It seems she just held on to it constantly for the week afterwards. But you're right, it should have been kept as evidence.

mccannfiles.com wrote:

Distraught mum Kate McCann presses little Madeleine's favourite toy to her lips as she prays for her daughter's safe return.
The 38-year-old has carried fluffy pink plaything "Cuddle Cat" everywhere for the past five days, pinning it to her handbag and taking it to church in Praia da Luz, the Algarve.

A source said: "It's her way of keeping something of Madeleine close to her. Any mother can imagine how important it has become."

mccannfiles.com wrote:

Talking about the night she went missing, she said: "I can't remember when I picked Cuddle Cat up. I don't think I did touch Cuddle Cat. I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that.

"I look back sometimes and think 'you didn't do that badly.' We were very conscious of not touching things.

"I can't actually remember when I collected Cuddle Cat."

maebee

Sorry. Trying to post a youtube vid (with no success)

ISDW

maebee wrote: »

This vid was taken, unknown to Gerry McCann, a few days after the "abduction". He doesn't look too worried that his daughter might be in the hands of a paedophile.

OK, does he look like someone who has just murdered his daughter, or covered up her death?

maebee

ISDW wrote: »

OK, does he look like someone who has just murdered his daughter, or covered up her death?

Did I post the video up correctly? I can't see it.

dark crystal

danmoz wrote: »

Did you just pull that out of your arse?

Murdered children have been murdered by relatives in most occurrences. According to Friedman et al.,[2] of murdered American children younger than five years old, 61% were murdered by their parents (30% murdered by mothers, and 31% by fathers); homicide was the fourth leading cause of death amongst American preschool-aged children, and the third leading cause of death amongst American children five to fourteen years old.

A number of murderers of children are pedophiles who commit lust murder or kill to cover up their other crimes. These latter cases are more notorious, although killings by family members are more common. Family members can also be pedophiles.

In the UK the number of child homicides has averaged 79 a year for the last 28 years. The Home Office also provides unpublished figures on the relationship between the child victims of homicide in any one year and the principal suspect. Latest figures for 2000/01 show that parents were the principal suspect in 78 per cent of child homicides.[

Still, let's not let facts get in the way of your bull****

ETA: 500 children a year abducted in the UK. Good luck trying to find the figures on how many are murdered.

You really revel in being unpleasant, don't you? Can you not make a point in a civil manner at all?

Anyway...

According to UNICEF (the U.N. children's fund), 1.2 million children are trafficked every year around the world.

" In Portugal, SOS Criança Desaparecida (SOS Missing Children) of the Instituto de Apoio à Crianza opened 31 new cases last year of missing children, involving 19 girls and 12 boys. "
Source(s):

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37797

It is hard to find statistics on children murdered by parents, but according to the NSPCC,: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html

"Almost every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent.1 In half (56% on average) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect"


Now which facts are bullsh!t, exactly?

maebee

ISDW wrote: »

OK, does he look like someone who has just murdered his daughter, or covered up her death?

I don't know if you can see the whole video of him laughing his head off. I never intimated that he murdered his daughter and I have no idea how murderers behave in the days after their crime. I just find it strange that he can laugh his head off when his daughter is in the hands of a paedophile.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

According to UNICEF (the U.N. children's fund), 1.2 million children are trafficked every year around the world.

" In Portugal, SOS Criança Desaparecida (SOS Missing Children) of the Instituto de Apoio à Crianza opened 31 new cases last year of missing children, involving 19 girls and 12 boys. "
Source(s):

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37797

It is hard to find statistics on children murdered by parents, but according to the NSPCC,: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html

"Almost every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent.1 In half (56% on average) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect"


Now which facts are bullsh!t, exactly?

So what the facts you presented are saying is that more often than not the parent or parents are the main suspects in cases of murdered children.


Plus if those facts are saying that 55 children a year are murdered in the UK and that one is killed every 10 days by a parent, then 36 children from the 55 are killed by a parent.

So basically you have confirmed, using those links, what a few here were saying about it being more likely that a child would be murdered by a parent than a stranger, based on solved cases.

Homer

maebee wrote: »

I just find it strange that he can laugh his head off when his daughter is in the hands of a paedophile.

Eh wha??? No she's not

ppink

maebee wrote: »

I don't know if you can see the whole video of him laughing his head off. I never intimated that he murdered his daughter and I have no idea how murderers behave in the days after their crime. I just find it strange that he can laugh his head off when his daughter is in the hands of a paedophile.

can you put up the link, cant see your original video

dark crystal

Kess73 wrote: »

So what the facts you presented are saying is that more often than not the parent or parents are the main suspects in cases of murdered children.


Plus if those facts are saying that 55 children a year are murdered in the UK and that one is killed every 10 days by a parent, then 36 children from the 55 are killed by a parent.

So basically you have confirmed, using those links, what a few here were saying about it being more likely that a child would be murdered by a parent than a stranger, based on solved cases.

1.2 million children trafficked around the world every day, compared to 36 children killed by a parent per year in the UK alone. 31 children reported missing in Portugal alone last year too.

Add together the child trafficking figures with 'stranger' abductions and you have a much wider figure than parent/child murders for the same period. (although it is almost impossible to find solid statistics for the worldwide figure of child deaths caused by a parent in a one year period)

maebee

Homer wrote: »

Eh wha??? No she's not

I don't think she is either but that is what the McCanns have been telling us for the past four years. This is what Kate had to tell us today:

Page 119: (beware ) "Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart".

maebee

ppink wrote: »

can you put up the link, cant see your original video

Sorry. I'm useless with Youtube. Hope this works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask

K-9

mconigol wrote: »

Yes there still are questions. Nothing credible enough to act on however. A lot of theories.

Well police opinions and not just from him, other high up officers too.

ro_chez

Are they going to be in Easons signing autographs?

Homer

maebee wrote: »

I don't think she is either but that is what the McCanns have been telling us for the past four years. This is what Kate had to tell us today:

Smoke and mirrors from the pair of them... Don't think we will ever know what really happened.

ppink

Well I am more suspicious. I cant understand him laughing away at possibly the most serious time in his life.

then looking at this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58&feature=related

what is it they say about a liar touching ears or nose?

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

1.2 million children trafficked around the world every day, compared to 36 children killed by a parent per year in the UK alone. 31 children reported missing in Portugal alone last year too.

Add together the child trafficking figures with 'stranger' abductions and you have a much wider figure than parent/child murders for the same period. (although it is almost impossible to find solid statistics for the worldwide figure of child deaths caused by a parent in a one year period)

Well the UK figures are solid as they are based on cases with convictions.

The US cases are also based on cases with convictions.

So there does seem to be a pattern forming in that when the murders are found, more often than not it is one of the parents.

Based on what is known of the McCann case, there is more evidence pointing against it being an abduction than there is to say it was one.

Now even if it was not an abduction, that does not automatically mean the McCanns are defo to blame, but there is enough to make them look very suspicious in their actions and in what they said.

maebee

ppink wrote: »

Well I am more suspicious. I cant understand him laughing away at possibly the most serious time in his life.

then looking at this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58&feature=related

what is it they say about a liar touching ears or nose?

His discomfort is very evident when Sandra asked him about the Calpol.

ISDW

maebee wrote: »

I don't know if you can see the whole video of him laughing his head off. I never intimated that he murdered his daughter and I have no idea how murderers behave in the days after their crime. I just find it strange that he can laugh his head off when his daughter is in the hands of a paedophile.

But you know how someone who's daughter has been abducted by paedophiles behaves though?

As has been said ad finitum, people behave in odd ways, and don't always behave the way they are 'expected' to, or how people in similar circumstances have been portrayed in works of fiction, such as tv programmes and films.

maebee

ISDW wrote: »

But you know how someone who's daughter has been abducted by paedophiles behaves though?

As has been said ad finitum, people behave in odd ways, and don't always behave the way they are 'expected' to, or how people in similar circumstances have been portrayed in works of fiction, such as tv programmes and films.

This lady's daughter said she never saw her mother laugh or smile since she lost her son to Moors murderer Ian Brady:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mothers-dying-appeal-to-moors-murderer-2274710.html


This is not fiction. Gerry McCann was laughing his head off days after his daughter vanished. I find that very very strange.

ISDW

maebee wrote: »

This lady's daughter said she never saw her mother laugh or smile since she lost her son to Moors murderer Ian Brady:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mothers-dying-appeal-to-moors-murderer-2274710.html


This is not fiction. Gerry McCann was laughing his head off days after his daughter vanished. I find that very very strange.

So because one person reacts in a certain way, everybody else in similar situations has to behave the same?

Who said it was fiction? People seem to base their opinions on how they think people should behave on what they have seen elsewhere, mainly TV and films.

It has been brought up on here a couple of times now, but do you remember that little girl that went missing in the UK a year/2 years ago? How her Mother cried and wailed on the TV, appealing for her daughter's safe return? Is that how you think they should be behaving? She behaved exactly how a lot of people think a mother in that situation should and would behave. Except then it was discovered that her daughter wasn't missing at all, she was hiding her. So even when people behave how society expects them to, it doesn't mean anything.