Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

dark crystal

Animord wrote: »

Actually it is a fairly well known fact that the brain "fills in" information that it doesn't have. The more you try to remember something the more likely it is that the brain will come up with something - not necessarily the right thing, but some thing all the same.

For more info search Richard Wiseman's book Quirkology.

It could also boil down to 'the rashomon effect', in which an incident witnessed by the same people, could be recalled in completely different ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

It could also boil down to 'the rashomon effect', in which an incident witnessed by the same people, could be recalled in completely different ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

Maybe in the case of a number of people, but Tanner's statements kept changing and contradicting her own earlier statements in a dramatic fashion that seemed to coincide with what was happening rather than what had happened.

CK2010

the whole 'making her story fit the emerging investigation' would actually prove my point more tbh. the brain gets triggers and fills in the rest. if i was asked had i seen anyone suspicious yeterday id say no outright, if i then heard a man was seen stealing something from my local shop id think to myself 'what men did i see yesterday when i was buying milk?', that could lead to me actually realising that i saw the whole thing happen. and remembering that i saw a man running past me a few feet away from the shop at the exact time it happened. earlier i may have assumed he was a jogger out for a run and never took notice but with new information my brain can process the information differently. bad example i know!

_feedback_

Went to the TV forum to check and yeah it is tonight that they are appearing on the LLS.

Naturally a bit of debate started over there and one poster popped up saying: “I suggest you read Kate's book before you start throwing around accusations”. Doesn’t that really sum up how a lot of people take the McCann/tabloid word as gospel.

By the way, excellent posts Little Acorn.

dark crystal

elviscostello wrote: »

Naturally a bit of debate started over there and one poster popped up saying: “I suggest you read Kate's book before you start throwing around accusations”. Doesn’t that really sum up how a lot of people take the McCann/tabloid word as gospel.

.

Ah now, in fairness, there's a few few people just as willing to take the Portugese detective's word as gospel too.

Works both ways.

pocketvenus

elviscostello wrote: »

Went to the TV forum to check and yeah it is tonight that they are appearing on the LLS.

Naturally a bit of debate started over there and one poster popped up saying: “I suggest you read Kate's book before you start throwing around accusations”. Doesn’t that really sum up how a lot of people take the McCann/tabloid word as gospel.

By the way, excellent posts Little Acorn.

That was a response to my post when I said I could see why people would not have huge amounts of sympathy for the McCanns.

When people go the s**m tabloids like The Sun to flog their stories / promote books etc before the police/ politicans it always seem a bit like how much € can i get from this.

maximoose

CK2010 wrote: »

the whole 'making her story fit the emerging investigation' would actually prove my point more tbh.

How? Was your point not this? -

CK2010 wrote: »

if something traumatic happened to me last night and i was questioned about my day i know id have a general timeline and idea but they probably wouldnt add up with other family members.

What you say there is fair enough... but an eye witness giving THREE vastly differing descriptions of a suspect to fit with emerging details as a case progresses is completely different.

pocketvenus

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah now, in fairness, there's a few few people just as willing to take the Portugese detective's word as gospel too.

Works both ways.

Problem is the Portugese report was backed up and confirmed in alot of area by British police so are they imcompent or lying too.

If US police got involved and said same what excuse would they or the people who believe them have them.

Problem is the McCanns themselves have changed some stories,alot of things do not add up if this was a different case say a murder of someone would everyone be so quick to dismiss police reports.

As it is a case of a child huge emotions get involved naturally and it is hard to step back take a breath and look objectively at things.

CK2010

maximoose wrote: »

How? Was your point not this? -



What you say there is fair enough... but an eye witness giving THREE vastly differing descriptions of a suspect as to fit with emerging details as a case progresses is completely different.

i explained it in the same post.

CK2010 wrote: »

the whole 'making her story fit the emerging investigation' would actually prove my point more tbh. the brain gets triggers and fills in the rest. if i was asked had i seen anyone suspicious yeterday id say no outright, if i then heard a man was seen stealing something from my local shop id think to myself 'what men did i see yesterday when i was buying milk?', that could lead to me actually realising that i saw the whole thing happen. and remembering that i saw a man running past me a few feet away from the shop at the exact time it happened. earlier i may have assumed he was a jogger out for a run and never took notice but with new information my brain can process the information differently. bad example i know!

things that seem insignificant arent remembered. no need to be. so when you're questioned you have the bare minimum of facts/timelines.

when new facts emerge and your brain fills in the gaps you start remembering things that previously seemed insignificant. you piece things together. its like a jigsaw- with two pieces that dont fit together its hard to put any of the others together but when you have a few pieces that fit together it gets easier to finish.

Little Acorn

CK2010 wrote: »

the whole 'making her story fit the emerging investigation' would actually prove my point more tbh. the brain gets triggers and fills in the rest. if i was asked had i seen anyone suspicious yeterday id say no outright, if i then heard a man was seen stealing something from my local shop id think to myself 'what men did i see yesterday when i was buying milk?', that could lead to me actually realising that i saw the whole thing happen. and remembering that i saw a man running past me a few feet away from the shop at the exact time it happened. earlier i may have assumed he was a jogger out for a run and never took notice but with new information my brain can process the information differently. bad example i know!

No it's not a bad example, and I can see what you are saying.
But if this reasoning is applied to Jane Tanners description, doesn't it kind of make her witness statement pretty useless as it would be so inaccurate?
Their main abduction evidence is that Jane Tanner saw a child wearing exactly the same pajamas as Madeline.
If this is inaccurate, and Jane Tanner's brain is just unintentionally making things to fit the investigation, and she didn't actually see this, then what are they left with?
A man in a family resort that could have been anyone, with nothing specific that points to it being Madeline?
What is the other evidence apart from the missing child?
Jane Tanner's witness statement is meant to be central to their case.

I personally find the amount her story changed to be alot more than what should be normal for just filling in the blanks,
and if police believe that she is just filling in the blanks then it doesn't make her witness statement at all reliable.
Yet a huge deal, and many descriptions were posted on newspapers about what she saw.

_feedback_

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah now, in fairness, there's a few few people just as willing to take the Portugese detective's word as gospel too.

Works both ways.

It doesn't really work both ways. For instance, Amaral would have written about the gap between the child going missing and the call to police being made, based on phone records from both sides.

McCanns book will write about calling the police, based on . . . . well, what she says.

She can say whatever she wants.

A lot of Amarals book is backed up and he has torn the McCanns story apart.

Hence the reason they have no time for him.

(I haven't read either book in full and I realise Amaral has been dismissed as being unreliable)

Vertakill

Little Acorn wrote: »

Their main abduction evidence is that Jane Tanner saw a man wearing exactly the same pajamas as Madeline.

Either the kidnapper is a midget or Maddy is a big girl!


In all seriousness though, I'm in agreement with most of what you've been saying.

Just reading that version of things from the former JP guy is enough to throw a lot of question marks up in the air.

maximoose

CK2010 wrote: »

i explained it in the same post.

No no, you explained how that might work based on a hypothetical situation of some milk thieving heathens. I completely understand what you're saying and would agree that happens but thats a completely different scenario.

3 descriptions of the same suspect varying in sex and ethnicity. That doesnt sound like something triggered her memory.

Little Acorn

Vertakill wrote: »

Either the kidnapper is a midget or Maddy is a big girl!


In all seriousness though, I'm in agreement with most of what you've been saying.

Just reading that version of things from the former JP guy is enough to throw a lot of question marks up in the air.

Whoops, fixed that now!:D

dark crystal

pocketvenus wrote: »

As it is a case of a child huge emotions get involved naturally and it is hard to step back take a breath and look objectively at things.

Indeed.

I can honestly see the sides of both arguments, however, personally, I find it difficult to believe how the McCanns could dispose of their daughter's body as easily as the police suggest.

The timeline they had between Kate supposedly discovering her daughter's dead body, cleaning up any evidence, hiding her somewhere without being seen, calling Gerry and their friends to the apartment, calling the police and then concealing the body in some sort of freezer for over three weeks before getting rid of it somewhere in a foreign country under the glare of the media and the police, all whilst appealing for her return and keeping their stories straight, just doesn't add up to me at all.

I don't believe the Portugese police have a coherent explaination for how they would have done this, either.

Looking at all the information objectively, it's still hard to piece everything together and make sense of it all.

Little Acorn

dark crystal wrote: »

Indeed.

I can honestly see the sides of both arguments, however, personally, I find it difficult to believe how the McCanns could dispose of their daughter's body as easily as the police suggest.

The timeline they had between Kate supposedly discovering her daughter's dead body, cleaning up any evidence, hiding her somewhere without being seen, calling Gerry and their friends to the apartment, calling the police and then concealing the body in some sort of freezer for over three weeks before getting rid of it somewhere in a foreign country under the glare of the media and the police, all whilst appealing for her return and keeping their stories straight, just doesn't add up to me at all.

I don't believe the Portugese police have a coherent explaination for how they would have done this, either.

Looking at all the information objectively, it's still hard to piece everything together and make sense of it all.

It is hard for me too to picture how an accident could have occurred and how a body could have been hid in the timelines that were given by the group.
I think what gets alot of people suspicious though is that they don't actually keep their stories straight.
I think the dog results play hugely on people's minds too, as they are very hard to explain away.
But yes, I would agree that I can't think of how they could have done it, if there was a hiding of a body involved.

I'll put it this way regarding this case.
If it turned out next month that they admitted or was 100% proven that there had been an accident/something else happened, and that they admit to having involvement etc., I would not be at all surprised.
I would probably say something, "well that case was always very weird", but I would be morbidly curious as to how they had managed to hide it for so long, and to what exactly happened.

If it turned out next month, that a body was found and was traced to an abductor with absolutely no links to the McCanns, I wouldn't be hugely surprised either, as I am also open to the chance that they are innocent.
I admit I might be a little surprised though, but I would just think, "well good for them, they've proved they were telling the truth all along"

If Madeline ever turned up alive, I would be massively shocked, but obviously in a very pleasant way.

Weird case is weird!:)

CK2010

maximoose wrote: »

No no, you explained how that might work based on a hypothetical situation of some milk thieving heathens. I completely understand what you're saying and would agree that happens but thats a completely different scenario.

3 descriptions of the same suspect varying in sex and ethnicity. That doesnt sound like something triggered her memory.

well actually i used it as an explanation in relation to this case but i used the milk thieving heathens as an example of how it could work in another scenario.

i never said it was fact or that its what happened just offered an explanation. it could just be as simple as people who care about her experiencing a case of wishful thinking hoping for a lead.

Edit: also,your post there just shows howlittle inaccuracies can occur when giving accounts of things. i said in my example that i was buying milk, not that milk was stolen. you took it up as milk was stolen. so simple yet a big difference. it can happen so easily so its not always people telling lies, just miscommunication. how many things like this could have happened during the day before they gave their statements. he said, she said type thing that leads them to believe something happened when it didnt. could explain the timeline confusions.

Jasper79

I personally think the McCann's know more than what they have revealed so far about what happened to Maddy. I would watch tonight but don't think Tubridy will ask any difficult questions, he seemed to use all them on Biffo.

Given the amount of theories of the involvement of the McCanns in their daughter's disappearance I am surprised that to this day, they have still not taken a lie detector test. I can understand the indignity of doing one if they are completey innocent but don't understand why they would not just do it, so as to refute as much as possible and ensure 100% of focus is put on other areas of the investigation, rather than them ?

ITUPE

Aside from the little girl herself, and those who were/are responsible, we are never going to know what really happened to little Maddie that night...unless those who were responsible suddenly get an overwhelming pang of guilt and fess up!

But this whole case does highlight the social divide in how child protection services apply to people from differing backgrounds and professions. I know this was raised before, but if the McCann's were working class and non-professional, I wonder would there have been the same level of sympathy and public outcry, or would the authorities in the UK have adopted a completely different approach?

I would love to know if child protection services ever banged on the McCann's door when they eventually arrived back in the UK to interview both of them about whether they also left their kids alone and unsupervised? I also wonder whether there were other incidents when their kids were "AT RISK"?

Its also very hard to believe that two people who's profession is medical related, would be totally oblivious to the fact that leaving any minor at home alone and unsupervised and particularly when they are so young (3 and under) does actually put your child "AT SERIOUS RISK".

Furthermore, if this child was abducted, its equally hard to believe that these two parents would be totally oblivious to the fact, that there are sick opportunists living amongs us, who when given the opportunity, will take your kids, abuse and god forbid even kill them. FFS, one of these parents worked in the field of psychiatry/psychology, and the other is a GP....so its not like they were unaware that this risks exist in today's society.

The person I really feel sorry for is the victim....that little angel who has disapeared without any trace.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

Indeed.

I can honestly see the sides of both arguments, however, personally, I find it difficult to believe how the McCanns could dispose of their daughter's body as easily as the police suggest.

The timeline they had between Kate supposedly discovering her daughter's dead body, cleaning up any evidence, hiding her somewhere without being seen, calling Gerry and their friends to the apartment, calling the police and then concealing the body in some sort of freezer for over three weeks before getting rid of it somewhere in a foreign country under the glare of the media and the police, all whilst appealing for her return and keeping their stories straight, just doesn't add up to me at all.

I don't believe the Portugese police have a coherent explaination for how they would have done this, either.

Looking at all the information objectively, it's still hard to piece everything together and make sense of it all.

People go on about this timeline as if there was only minutes available to move a body.

The last time anyone other than the McCanns thinks they saw the child was between 17:00 and 18:00 that evening. Some of the witnesses could not confirm if they had seen the child for defo at all that afternoon.


The police were called at 23:50, and that time is comfirmed as the call was recorded, and arrive at approx midnight.

Kate says she found the child was gone at 22:00. So there are at least 4 to 5 hours before Kate said the child was missing, and almost another 2 hours before the police were called.


Plus there is the weird fact that none of the friends who said they checked the apartment saw Madeline when they checked but all that entered the apartment say they saw the twins.

So if there is nobody other than the McCanns to say that she was actually in the apartment, why should it be taking for granted that she was defo there when the checking or supposed checking began?

Plus Jane Tanner claims she saw a man carrying what she now says was the child at 21:20, yet Gerry checked the room at approx 21:15 and another friend was sent to check it at 21:30, although the guy who checked the room at 21:30 then changed his statement to say that he saw the twins asleep when he checked but did not see Madeline.



All these witnesses were very exact with their times, but the Jane Tanner sighting has another big flaw to it. Where she claims to have seen the man with the child is a narrow laneway.

Another witness, Jeremy Wilkins, was in the short narrow lane at that exact time and he stopped to talk to Gerry McCann there at roughly the time Tanner says she was there. Yet this man did not see Tanner or the mystery man with child and he said as much in his statement to the police.


Wilkins was known to the party with the McCanns as he gets mentioned as having being the "Jez" that Gerry chatted with in statements by Gerry and another member of the party.


So we have a number of hours where nobody bar the McCanns saw the child. It could be anything between 4 and 6 hours between anyone other than the McCaans thinking that they may have seen the child to when the child was reported as missing.

But if Tanner was telling the truth and she really did see a man carrying the child at 21:20, then that man had to take her between Gerry being there at 21:15 and the other friend, Matthew Oldfield at 21:30, and the abducter would have to have walked right down the lane where Jeremy Wilkins stood talking with Gerry McCann because that is the lane way Jane Tanner claims to have seen that man whilst someone not seeing her friend Gerry and the man he was talking to.

The lane way has been shown to be dead straight, well lit with one entrance and one exit.

Take Tanner out of the equation and the timelines match up better, but her versions, sorry her versions of who she saw just don't nake sense not only in terms of her describing totally different looking people with each statement but because it clashes somewhat with the statements of Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins.

RoryMac

I t would be interesting to see Tubridy actually question them on some of the facts of that night unlike the english media who seem to accuse anyone with valid questions of having an agenda but i would be very surprised.

Kess73

RoryMac wrote: »

I t would be interesting to see Tubridy actually question them on some of the facts of that night unlike the english media who seem to accuse anyone with valid questions of having an agenda but i would be very surprised.

Ahh now, Tubridy is a total lightweight in media terms.

He has never struck me as the type who can think quickly on his feet or question his guests with anything other than the most basic of styles.


Having said that I would not like to see the McCanns getting grilled on national television by a well researched and dogged interviewer either. It is just not the place for an interrogation.

The only place where they should be questioned in detail is behind closed doors, but they have already shown how unwilling they are to do that and that they prefer to have one sided conversations through the media.

mydearwatson

Going to join in with the wild hypothesising. :pac:

The theory I'm going to throw out is that one/both of the parents arranged the "abduction" well in advance of the holiday.

The 48 questions that Kate McCann wouldn't answer (link) - question number 41, "Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?" Does anyone know if there's any truth at all behind this? Because if there is, that's a massive issue! I've seen articles (admittedly mostly in tabloids) that Madeleine was described as a "difficult" child, and that she threw lots of tantrums etc, especially after the twins was born. As far as I know, all of the children were born as a result of IVF. The McCanns may have only ever planned to have two children - anyone who has ever spent time with kids will know that there is a massive difference between minding two small children and minding three of them. Could be that the parents just never "bonded" with Madeleine in the same way they did with the twins? (Or just one of them may have felt this way.)

So for the sake of argument, I'm going to say that only Gerry was ever involved in the whole thing. And I'm going to go with the "fairytale" that he sold/gave her for adoption to a nice rich person/couple, maybe in Spain or Italy. I've no idea if there's any "market" like this for children. I don't know, it's just more palatable than imagining her in the possession of some paedophile ring or whatever. Particularly if her own parent(s) had any involvement.

It would have been quite easy for Gerry to make all the arrangements from the UK before the holiday using a prepaid mobile phone, which could be disposed of before they even left.

In this documentary, from 02:40 on, there are reconstructions based on the evidence of three witnesses, describing a very suspicious "ugly" man seen lurking outside the McCanns apartment in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance.
Witness 1: A British tourist saw a man four days before the event, and then again the day before it. On the day before, he seemed to be watching the apartment from across the road.
Witness 2: A young local schoolgirl. Three days before the event, she saw a man leaning on the wall outside the apartment and apparently looking in at the balcony through the bushes. Then again, the day before, she saw the same man watching the apartment from across the road (similar to Witness 1.)
Witness 3: An elderly British couple, on either the day she disappeared or the day before it, saw a man staring at the apartment from across the road (similar to the other two witnesses.) They also noticed a white van parked nearby.

Based on the above witness accounts, it really seems as if the man was purposely trying to look "suspicious"! Gerry/someone else could have arranged for him to be seen lurking there in the days coming up to Madeleine's disappearance, in the hope that witnesses would remember him, thus backing up their abduction claims.

Or of course he could actually have been the person responsible for the abduction, with no involvement of the McCanns. Either way, I think it's a significant bit of evidence, especially as the witness statements tie in together so well, and the witnesses have no apparent link to each other or to the McCanns.

Now, I might be reading way too much into this little detail. See from 01:40 here. On seeing the reconstructed photo of Madeleine aged six, Gerry says "In our memory, we remember her the last day she was in Portugal and what she looked like." How is he so sure she's no longer in Portugal?! Just seems an odd way for him to say it.

Re. the conflicting stories of the so-called "Tapas 7".
I wouldn't read too much into this.
If the group had planned in advance to cover up for the McCanns, surely they would have gotten their stories and timelines straight?
If, on the other hand, the McCanns came to them in a panic on the night and asked them to help cover for them - it's so unlikely all of them would go along with it. Besides I get the impression they were acquaintances rather than best buddies - one/some of them would have come clean afterwards, I would think.
My opinion is that they'd all had plenty to drink and that's the main reason behind the discrepancies.
And that Jane one just seems like a bit of a fairy ... her memory seemed to change as new evidence emerged, but I'd see that as sort of wishful thinking on her part rather than anything more sinister.

Re. the sniffer dog evidence.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the Spanish police had involvement in this. Or even just one police officer. Think of it - the officer, presumably one central to the investigation, is certain that the McCanns did it, and is angry and frustrated at the lack of evidence to prove it. As a member of the police force, it wouldn't be too difficult for him to obtain an item of clothing etc from a corpse and use this to place the cadaver scent in the apartment and in the rental car? It seems farfetched, but to me, the idea of the McCanns moving the body in a rental car that they only rented a few weeks after the fact is absolutely bizarre. Impossible even. I'm not necessarily saying the Spanish police force is corrupt - it would only take one officer.

Anyways, the theory I'm suggesting is - Gerry planned Madeleine's disappearance in advance and arranged the date and time of the abduction, and also arranged for a "suspicious man" to be seen in broad daylight lurking around the apartment in the days coming up to the abduction. On the night in question, he sedated all three children (explaining why the twins never woke with all the commotion.) I'm not too sure of the exact timeline, but we'll say Madeleine was there when the parents left the apartment for dinner. The only person who actually saw her (between then and when Kate went to check) was Gerry. So the person could have taken her straight after the parents left, started driving, and gotten a good 2-3 hour headstart.

OK it seems a bit ludicrous, but no moreso than any of the other possible theories. And I guess it's a "best case scenario" - the parent(s) wanted her to disappear, but only a monster would arrange to have their child abducted by paedophiles or by anyone who would do them harm.

guitarzero

The whole McCann kidknapping stinks of tabloids, fear and continuos dread, I still cant understand why, so many years after, it still gets the level of coverage it does.

AskMyChocolate

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah now, in fairness, there's a few few people just as willing to take the Portugese detective's word as gospel too.

Works both ways.

In fairness DC, people are taking the conclusions of two police forces,based on empirical evidence, involving over 100 police officers, who have no personal interest in the case, over the word of two possible suspects. It's hardly a "works both ways" scenario.

elviscostello wrote: »

It doesn't really work both ways. For instance, Amaral would have written about the gap between the child going missing and the call to police being made, based on phone records from both sides.

McCanns book will write about calling the police, based on . . . . well, what she says.

She can say whatever she wants.

A lot of Amarals book is backed up and he has torn the McCanns story apart.

Hence the reason they have no time for him.

(I haven't read either book in full and I realise Amaral has been dismissed as being unreliable)

They also spent a lot of money, using the best lawyers available, taking a libel lawsuit against Amaral, and lost. A huge misstep on their part, and would obviously lead to them resenting the man.

dark crystal wrote: »

Indeed.

I can honestly see the sides of both arguments, however, personally, I find it difficult to believe how the McCanns could dispose of their daughter's body as easily as the police suggest.

The timeline they had between Kate supposedly discovering her daughter's dead body, cleaning up any evidence, hiding her somewhere without being seen, calling Gerry and their friends to the apartment, calling the police and then concealing the body in some sort of freezer for over three weeks before getting rid of it somewhere in a foreign country under the glare of the media and the police, all whilst appealing for her return and keeping their stories straight, just doesn't add up to me at all.

I don't believe the Portugese police have a coherent explaination for how they would have done this, either.

Looking at all the information objectively, it's still hard to piece everything together and make sense of it all.

Okay, this is really tricky, and I don't really no how to say it, without being offensive. I've tried to hint at it in a few previous posts, but nobody has picked up the ball. I wish I knew how to put a spoiler in for those who don't want to read it. THIS IS SIMPLY A THEORY AND NOT WHAT I THINK DID HAPPEN.

It is perfectly possible and plausible that the body is no longer a body. We are dealing with a group of doctors who would all have the ability and experience of dissecting a dead body. With a couple of sharp knives, a hammer, a bottle of bleach, and a drain, the body is easily disposed of. Sorry everybody for that. It is inhuman, and fair play to the humanity of all other posters for not coming up with this.

Finally, what has been puzzling me a lot, is why the McCanns, with the ear of the media, have not been more forward in trying to bring the evidence of the Smith family to the forefront of this investigation. Mr Smith thought he saw a man resembling Gerry McCann with a small girl fitting Madeleine's description at 10 o'clock. What is certain, is that the Smith family saw a man with a small girl, and the one thing that all of them are certain of is the time, as they left Kelly's pub early to be sure to get a good night's sleep as one of them had a flight to catch in the morning. Now if it can be established, that Gerry McCann was still at the dinner table in Tapas at this time, it would lend a huge amount of credence to the theory that Madeleine may have been abducted. It could simply have been another man carrying his daughter home, but why has this man not been asked to come forward, and why isn't it splashed all over the media. Surely, it is hugely important.

I'm still completely mystified as to what went on that night.

K-9

It's always a man in a white van, always.

theboss80

elviscostello wrote: »

Went to the TV forum to check and yeah it is tonight that they are appearing on the LLS.

Naturally a bit of debate started over there and one poster popped up saying: “I suggest you read Kate's book before you start throwing around accusations”. Doesn’t that really sum up how a lot of people take the McCann/tabloid word as gospel.

By the way, excellent posts Little Acorn.

pocketvenus wrote: »

That was a response to my post when I said I could see why people would not have huge amounts of sympathy for the McCanns.
QUOTE]


Wrong.

Actually that post was in response to post pocketvenus posted about FACTS that they had left 3 children under the age of 3 alone and they were 5mins walk DOWN THE ROAD. Which both are wrong "facts"

Animord

mydearwatson wrote: »

Going to join in with the wild hypothesising. :pac:

The theory I'm going to throw out is that one/both of the parents arranged the "abduction" well in advance of the holiday.

And Gerry McCann was reported (I haven't got time to find the link) at, I think the airport, someone said to him something like "cheer up you are on holiday" and he allegedly said - 'I am not here to have fun' Will find the link but white wine and visitors are calling so it might be tomorrow if anyone is interested.

To swap for a minute to the other side again - God love them - the news reports are reporting that they are getting special treatment because the case has been reopened - they can't win.

Animord

Animord wrote: »

And Gerry McCann was reported (I haven't got time to find the link) at, I think the airport, someone said to him something like "cheer up you are on holiday" and he allegedly said - 'I am not here to have fun' Will find the link but white wine and visitors are calling so it might be tomorrow if anyone is interested.

To swap for a minute to the other side again - God love them - the news reports are reporting that they are getting special treatment because the case has been reopened - they can't win.

However, having said that, I am always saying stuff that, if any or my colleagues were brutally murdered, would implicate me, so maybe it means nothing.

baalthor

My theory is that she was abducted by Lord Lucan ...