Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

cosmicfart

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.

How do you know Madeline is dead? I have nothing against Portuguese people, except that I found them quite intolerable while on hols there, so much so that i will never go again. As for Madelines parents appearing on the late late.....DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY ARE APPEARING JUST TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR MISSING CHILD BY PROMOTING A BOOK??? YOUR A SICK INTERNET WIERDO IN THAT CASE who is just babbering for thanks.

Jane Eyre

My tuppence-halfpenny worth:

The parents had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance, but I wish to God they would come out and say 'we were wrong to leave the kids unsupervised'. I think it's the lack of taking that bit of responsibility that makes them look guilty.

But then Lindy Chamberlain was charged with her daughter's murder on very flimsy evidence largely because she did not react in the way expected of her. It was later proved that a dingo did take her baby.

I hope this mystery is solved in my lifetime. I really want to know what happened to the wee girl.

Donkey Oaty

cosmicfart wrote: »

DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY ARE APPEARING JUST TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR MISSING CHILD BY PROMOTING A BOOK???

And what's wrong with doing that?

The way some people go on here, you'd swear they were child-murderers...

Namlub

cosmicfart wrote: »

How do you know Madeline is dead? I have nothing against Portuguese people, except that I found them quite intolerable while on hols there, so much so that i will never go again. As for Madelines parents appearing on the late late.....DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY ARE APPEARING JUST TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR MISSING CHILD BY PROMOTING A BOOK??? YOUR A SICK INTERNET WIERDO IN THAT CASE who is just babbering for thanks.

Did you also bring your own teabags, and refer to their food as 'foreign muck'?

cosmicfart

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

And what's wrong with doing that?

The way some people go on here, you'd swear they were child-murderers...

yeah you probualy are one of them people....

cosmicfart

Namlub wrote: »

Did you also bring your own teabags, and refer to their food as 'foreign muck'?

yeah I do and I kidnap their children while they are out eating

Little Acorn

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

Yep, there are things that definitely do not add up.
The last definite proof of somebody other than the McCanns seeing Madeline is the people at the creche.
The sign out sheet shows that Madeline was collected at 5:30pm.
Her nanny in the club Catriona Baker also confirms this.
Image of the checkout sheet:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ProcessoVolumeIpage105x.JPG.w560h398.jpg

From 5:30pm onwards there is no hard evidence such as cctv footage, as to where exactly Madeline was.
David Payne has changed his story. Originally he said 5pm was the last time he saw Madeline and that Gerry was there too.
Now he says that it would have been from 6:30pm onwards was the last time he saw Madeline, and that Kate was alone with kids, and Gerry was at tennis.

His second version fits better. Madeline has been proven to have left the creche at only 5:30pm, so he couldn't have seen her at 5pm.
CCTV footage from the Paradiso beach bar show David, Russell and Matthew leaving at approx 6:15pm.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mccannfiles.com%2Fid213.html&ei=s13NTdb6L8nOhAeYlcz8DA&usg=AFQjCNEp3DU9tioDY6CtN4NZ_q-cUZBrxg

He then says he went to the tennis club, spoke with Gerry, went back to get his gear, and went to visit Kate.
So he would have last seen Madeline from about 6:30pm onwards.

Everybody says that the McCanns were on time for the dinner that was scheduled for 8:30pm. They are meant to have been at the Tapas from either 8:15 -8:30pm.

If above is true, this would leave less than a 2 hour gap from when Madeline was supposed to have been seen dressed for bed with the twins, to when the McCanns arrived at dinner.
Gerry is not meant to have arrived back from after the tennis until some time after 7pm,so this lowers the gap to an hour and and a half, and the McCanns still had time to get changed for dinner, get the twins to bed, and arrive on time for dinner in the tapas, which would leave the gap there for an accident occurring, and some type of coverup very small.

From the accounts I've read so far, Matthew Oldfield listened outside Madeline's shutters at about 8:50pm on his way from checking his own daughter Grace, and he heard nothing.
Gerry went and checked the children at about 9/9:10pm and chatted to his friend for abit on the way back. He reported back that everything was fine in the apartment.
At approx 9:25pm, Kate gave permission to Matthew and Russell to check in on her kids, as they were going that way anyways checking on their own kids. Russell ended up staying with own child, Matthew checked on his own and the McCann children. He did not see Madeline but assumed she was asleep. He says he just saw the twins from his angle.
He reported back that there was no crying etc, and that everything seemed fine.It was then the 10pm check that Kate found Madeline missing.

The above is how far I've got from reading the accounts so far.

Aside from the group all agreeing that it was approx 10pm when Madeline was discovered missing, other witness statements from outsiders support the fact that the alarm was raised at about 10pm.
There are people who say that they became aware of the alarm being raised of a missing child from about 10pm -10:30pm onwards.
I of course do not know how reliable these witness statements are, but if it is true, and there was so much activity around the apartment, and people were at the apartment, and some were searching the area, then how would they have time to get rid of a body without anybody seeing them?
If everybody is telling the truth about the timeline and events, then it only leaves them an hour and a half before dinner for Madeline to die and hide her body, get the twins to bed, and get ready to be on time for dinner.

Again if their stories are true, nobody was on a check for longer than a few minutes, and there is about a 1 hour gap from which Madeline was actually checked by Gerry, and found missing by Kate. They are both said to have been at the tapas in that hour gap.

I still do not understand that if even outsiders, and hotel staff were aware of Madeline being missing from 10 pm on, then how could the police not have got any call until 23:50?
It just doesn't make any sense, but if that is what the phone record from both the hotel and police show, then I don't doubt that it is true.
I would have to believe actual phone records over anybody's testimony.

Of course my above understanding of the timeline of events, is only applicable IF you accept the testimonies as truth.
And there is a large enough IF there, due to the changing stories and things.
If they were ever proven to be lying about their version of events/whereabouts/checking on the kids, then the whole case would be blown wide open, and there would be a huge gap of hours in which something could of occurred.

The last definite fact is that Madeline left the creche at 5:30pm. From there we can only go on the testimonies.

Donkey Oaty

cosmicfart wrote: »

yeah you probualy are one of them people....

I really think you ought to go now, Columbo. I'm expecting guests.

cosmicfart

Little Acorn wrote: »

Yep, there are things that definitely do not add up.
The last definite proof of somebody other than the McCanns seeing Madeline is the people at the creche.
The sign out sheet shows that Madeline was collected at 5:30pm.
Her nanny in the club Catriona Baker also confirms this.
Image of the checkout sheet:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ProcessoVolumeIpage105x.JPG.w560h398.jpg

From 5:30pm onwards there is no hard evidence such as cctv footage, as to where exactly Madeline was.
David Payne has changed his story. Originally he said 5pm was the last time he saw Madeline and that Gerry was there too.
Now he says that it would have been from 6:30pm onwards was the last time he saw Madeline, and that Kate was alone with kids, and Gerry was at tennis.

His second version fits better. Madeline has been proven to have left the creche at only 5:30pm, so he couldn't have seen her at 5pm.
CCTV footage from the Paradiso beach bar show David, Russell and Matthew leaving at approx 6:15pm.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mccannfiles.com%2Fid213.html&ei=s13NTdb6L8nOhAeYlcz8DA&usg=AFQjCNEp3DU9tioDY6CtN4NZ_q-cUZBrxg

He then says he went to the tennis club, spoke with Gerry, went back to get his gear, and went to visit Kate.
So he would have last seen Madeline from about 6:30pm onwards.

Everybody says that the McCanns were on time for the dinner that was scheduled for 8:30pm. They are meant to have been at the Tapas from either 8:15 -8:30pm.

If above is true, this would leave less than a 2 hour gap from when Madeline was supposed to have been seen dressed for bed with the twins, to when the McCanns arrived at dinner.
Gerry is not meant to have arrived back from after the tennis until some time after 7pm,so this lowers the gap to an hour and and a half, and the McCanns still had time to get changed for dinner, get the twins to bed, and arrive on time for dinner in the tapas, which would leave the gap there for an accident occurring, and some type of coverup very small.

From the accounts I've read so far, Matthew Oldfield listened outside Madeline's shutters at about 8:50pm on his way from checking his own daughter Grace, and he heard nothing.
Gerry went and checked the children at about 9/9:10pm and chatted to his friend for abit on the way back. He reported back that everything was fine in the apartment.
At approx 9:25pm, Kate gave permission to Matthew and Russell to check in on her kids, as they were going that way anyways checking on their own kids. Russell ended up staying with own child, Matthew checked on his own and the McCann children. He did not see Madeline but assumed she was asleep. He says he just saw the twins from his angle.
He reported back that there was no crying etc, and that everything seemed fine.It was then the 10pm check that Kate found Madeline missing.

The above is how far I've got from reading the accounts so far.

Aside from the group all agreeing that it was approx 10pm when Madeline was discovered missing, other witness statements from outsiders support the fact that the alarm was raised at about 10pm.
There are people who say that they became aware of the alarm being raised of a missing child from about 10pm -10:30pm onwards.
I of course do not know how reliable these witness statements are, but if it is true, and there was so much activity around the apartment, and people were at the apartment, and some were searching the area, then how would they have time to get rid of a body without anybody seeing them?
If everybody is telling the truth about the timeline and events, then it only leaves them an hour and a half before dinner for Madeline to die and hide her body, get the twins to bed, and get ready to be on time for dinner.

Again if their stories are true, nobody was on a check for longer than a few minutes, and there is about a 1 hour gap from which Madeline was actually checked by Gerry, and found missing by Kate. They are both said to have been at the tapas in that hour gap.

I still do not understand that if even outsiders, and hotel staff were aware of Madeline being missing from 10 pm on, then how could the police not have got any call until 23:50?
It just doesn't make any sense, but if that is what the phone record from both the hotel and police show, then I don't doubt that it is true.
I would have to believe actual phone records over anybody's testimony.

Of course my above understanding of the timeline of events, is only applicable IF you accept the testimonies as truth.
And there is a large enough IF there, due to the changing stories and things.
If they were ever proven to be lying about their version of events/whereabouts/checking on the kids, then the whole case would be blown wide open, and there would be a huge gap of hours in which something could of occurred.

The last definite fact is that Madeline left the creche at 5:30pm. From there we can only go on the testimonies.

a good kidnapper will never let you know what they are doing or how they did it. This media circus is the only way for the Mcanns to highlight their daughter is missing, inevitably they will attract all the conspiracty theorists out their and all sorts of nonsense

ppink

what i dont get is if the man carrying the child seen by the Smiths was not the man carrying Madeline then why has he not come forward to rule himself and his child out of the investigation

cosmicfart

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I really think you ought to go now, Columbo. I'm expecting guests.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz did the one armed do it?? thats you.

mydearwatson

From 01:10 on in this link, Kate responds to a question about her emotion (or lack thereof.) It's interesting to watch how she tries to respond to the question, but Gerry cuts in on her talking about how "as Brits we're pretty stoical" and she looks very p*ssed off at him cutting in like that, but still lets him finish for her.

In fact he often cuts in like that in interviews. She starts an honest answer, then he cuts in with a load of rehearsed-sounding crap.

cosmicfart

mydearwatson wrote: »

From 01:10 on in this link, Kate responds to a question about her emotion (or lack thereof.) It's interesting to watch how she tries to respond to the question, but Gerry cuts in on her talking about how "as Brits we're pretty stoical" and she looks very p*ssed off at him cutting in like that, but still lets him finish for her.

In fact he often cuts in like that in interviews. She starts an honest answer, then he cuts in with a load of rehearsed-sounding crap.

its a shame that their body language and every interview etc that they do is like a police interrogation with people sizing up every little soundbite and hand gesture a possible sign of guilt! She just wants to show the world how much she missess her daughter and doesnt want some moronic news paperatzee fooking it up

Donkey Oaty

cosmicfart wrote: »

zzzzzzzzzzzzz did the one armed do it?? thats you.

Sorry to be off topic, but although you assume it's a lazy meme, Mr Google tells me that nobody in internet history has ever those lines.

That's a thing called "linguistic evidence" and I suggest you accquaint yourself with it if you are interested in the McCann case.

cosmicfart

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Sorry to be off topic, but although you assume it's a lazy meme, Mr Google tells me that nobody in internet history has ever those lines.

That's a thing called "linguistic evidence" and I suggest you accquaint yourself with it if you are interested in the McCann case.

and this "linguistic evidence" is proof of what exactly? if i stutter or flinch when asked a question is that proof of something?! lol

mydearwatson

cosmicfart wrote: »

She just wants to show the world how much she missess her daughter and doesnt want some moronic news paperatzee fooking it up

Well, yeah, that's sort of my point, as per my previous posts! She comes across as being pretty genuine (although unfortunately she comes across as being quite cold and unlikeable at the same time. Doesn't mean she's a bad person though.)

He comes across as having something to hide.

Dublin_Gunner

cosmicfart wrote: »

How do you know Madeline is dead? I have nothing against Portuguese people, except that I found them quite intolerable while on hols there, so much so that i will never go again. As for Madelines parents appearing on the late late.....DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY ARE APPEARING JUST TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR MISSING CHILD BY PROMOTING A BOOK??? YOUR A SICK INTERNET WIERDO IN THAT CASE who is just babbering for thanks.

I've been to Portugal quiote a few times, and always found the people very welcoming...

And exactly, what (if you could enlighten me) would be the reason to promote a newly released book on various TV shows be?

Are they selling the book at cost price, just to get their story out there? Nope.

They could easily have written it and released it to national press to print a section each day if that was the case. No need for publishers, no need for expensive print & distribution agreements etc.

So please, let us all know (as we're obviously too dumb to figure it out ourselves) what the reason is for the McCanns to promote their book on the most watched chat show on Irish TV?

cosmicfart

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I've been to Portugal quiote a few times, and always found the people very welcoming...

And exactly, what (if you could enlighten me) would be the reason to promote a newly released book on various TV shows be?

Are they selling the book at cost price, just to get their story out there? Nope.

They could easily have written it and released it to national press to print a section each day if that was the case. No need for publishers, no need for expensive print & distribution agreements etc.

So please, let us all know (as we're obviously too dumb to figure it out ourselves) what the reason is for the McCanns to promote their book on the most watched chat show on Irish TV?

To highlight the fact that they are still looking for the daughter, while the rest of the world moves on and treats them as criminals cus they are the only viable suspects apparent.

Kess73

cosmicfart wrote: »

a good kidnapper will never let you know what they are doing or how they did it. This media circus is the only way for the Mcanns to highlight their daughter is missing, inevitably they will attract all the conspiracty theorists out their and all sorts of nonsense

I agree that using the media is one way, and a powerful one, for the McCanns or any parents missing a child to highlight the issue and to get the child's face out into the public domain.


But what is odd, to me anyway, is why were the media called before the police?


The Telegraph was running the story on their website as an abduction at the same time as the first policemen were arriving at the scene.

Now the phone records of both the hotel and the emergency records were presented in the report and both showed the call to the police as happening at 23:50.

The police were recorded as having arrived at the scene roughly ten minutes after the call was made, something both the McCanns and the police agree on. But the English media were already able to have all the details on the child, the McCanns and that it was an abduction before the police even started the investigation.

It just strikes me as odd that the media back in England would be rang before the local police on such a thing.

And it also strikes me as strange that a child found missing at 22:00 and whose mother was sure straight away that it was an abduction, would not be reported to the police for another hour and fifty minutes.

Now that does not mean the McCanns are guilty of doing something to the child, but the fact that the call times are present in the report and that they clash badly with the McCanns timeframe does present the potential for doubt.

danmoz

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.

The British and Portugese police, stop being so disinegenuous

SAs to Jane Tanners sighting and her 'mind filling in blanks', how can her sighting change so dramatically that the 'abductor' went from being caucasian to dark skinned.

If it they caught someone now and it went to trial, her statement would be ripped apart by the defense;

Defense: "so you saw a dark skinned man with long black hair and a moustache?"

JT: "Yes"

Defense: "but you say here that you saw a caucasian man with short brown hair? How can that be?"

At which point she gets ripped to pieces.

cosmicfart

Kess73 wrote: »

I agree that using the media is one way, and a powerful one, for the McCanns or any parents missing a child to highlight the issue and to get the child's face out into the public domain.


But what is odd, to me anyway, is why were the media called before the police?


The Telegraph was running the story on their website as an abduction at the same time as the first policemen were arriving at the scene.

Now the phone records of both the hotel and the emergency records were presented in the report and both showed the call to the police as happening at 23:50.

The police were recorded as having arrived at the scene roughly ten minutes after the call was made, something both the McCanns and the police agree on. But the English media were already able to have all the details on the child, the McCanns and that it was an abduction before the police even started the investigation.

It just strikes me as odd that the media back in England would be rang before the local police on such a thing.

And it also strikes me as strange that a child found missing at 22:00 and whose mother was sure straight away that it was an abduction, would not be reported to the police for another hour and fifty minutes.

Now that does not mean the McCanns are guilty of doing something to the child, but the fact that the call times are present in the report and that they clash badly with the McCanns timeframe does present the potential for doubt.

Perhaps the Media abducted Madeline! For the Story! Seriously though, you could not say what you would or would not do in the same instance!? Yes their actions may seem strange but rightly so. How can anyone be in a sound mind with such an event? And even to this day they are lost with what to do???

Pedro K

cosmicfart wrote: »

To highlight the fact that they are still looking for the daughter, while the rest of the world moves on and treats them as criminals cus they are the only viable suspects apparent.

Read the thread instead of just didmissing everyone elses points as those of internet wierdos etc.. People aren't treating them as criminals because 'they are the only viable suspects'. That's horse****. People, well most of them, are forming opinions based on evidence that the McCanns themselves gave in most instances.

And even if nothing is proven, they certainly are guilty of one thing, and that's criminal neglect in leaving three children under the ages of 4 alone while they wined and dined.

danmoz

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 make people disappear all the time. Recall the recent case of the taxi driver that killed that woman (Sian something?). They didn't find her until they caught him and he told her where the body was. They also recovered the body of anothe rof his victims that had been there years.

cosmicfart

Pedro K wrote: »

Read the thread instead of just didmissing everyone elses points as those of internet wierdos etc.. People aren't treating them as criminals because 'they are the only viable suspects'. That's horse****. People, well most of them, are forming opinions based on evidence that the McCanns themselves gave in most instances.

And even if nothing is proven, they certainly are guilty of one thing, and that's criminal neglect in leaving three children under the ages of 4 alone while they wined and dined.

Dont be daft, havent you ever gone for something to eat, not even a 100 Yards away from were you child was? What would you do if you came back and your child was gone?? fooking Freak is what you would do. all this media/internet talk does nothing but give 'what ifs'' to people whose opinion that does not count.

Little Acorn

danmoz wrote: »

The British and Portugese police, stop being so disinegenuous

SAs to Jane Tanners sighting and her 'mind filling in blanks', how can her sighting change so dramatically that the 'abductor' went from being caucasian to dark skinned.

If it they caught someone now and it went to trial, her statement would be ripped apart by the defense;

Defense: "so you saw a dark skinned man with long black hair and a moustache?"

JT: "Yes"

Defense: "but you say here that you saw a caucasian man with short brown hair? How can that be?"

At which point she gets ripped to pieces.

Don't forget this helpful photofit id! :pac:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S-85vGjPJyI/AAAAAAAAHgM/xJzHLhHGyng/s1600/11.jpg

K, I have to leave this thread for a little while. Tiredness is making me giddy and silly ....:o

Donkey Oaty

cosmicfart wrote: »

and this "linguistic evidence" is proof of what exactly? if i stutter or flinch when asked a question is that proof of something?! lol

Cosmic, I'm sure you mean well, but from what you say you have no knowledge of the details of the evidence or even criminal law in general.

For that, and for that reason alone, aim oot.

Nothing personal.

Pedro K

cosmicfart wrote: »

Dont be daft, havent you ever gone for something to eat, not even a 100 Yards away from were you child was? What would you do if you came back and your child was gone?? fooking Freak is what you would do. all this media/internet talk does nothing but give 'what ifs'' to people whose opinion that does not count.

I don't have a child (cue the "you don't understand comments"), however I have a younger brother who I regularly bring to Shamrock Rovers football matches. I never let him out of my sight when I do.

Likewise, he isn't left in the house by himself, even if the guardians are only "100 yards" away. And again, he's 13. The oldest of the kids they left alone was 3 years old, and they left the apartment unlocked. Now explain to me how I'm being "daft" please.

cosmicfart

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Cosmic, I'm sure you mean well, but from what you say you have no knowledge of the details of the evidence or even criminal law in general.

For that, and for that reason alone, aim oot.

Nothing personal.

I have followed the case quite close actually. hard not to. Im not a lawyer or whatever but am firmly of the opinion that these parents in question are only searching for their daughter and are not the reason she is missing.

Kess73

cosmicfart wrote: »

Perhaps the Media abducted Madeline! For the Story! Seriously though, you could not say what you would or would not do in the same instance!? Yes their actions may seem strange but rightly so. How can anyone be in a sound mind with such an event? And even to this day they are lost with what to do???

I think that if I was in a foreign country and had a child go missing that calling the local police would come before ringing a newspaper and sky news in terms of the first call or calls that I made.


Only two calls make sense to me personally for that situation. To call the police and possibly call a family member back home.


The police was the last call to be made that night. The media and family back home were called long before the police.

Not calling the police for 1 hour and 50 minutes after your child is missing has to increase the chance an abductor has to get away. Kate McCann claimed that she knew straight away that the child was abducted, so if there was an abductor there that night, not making an earlier call to the police made that person's escape that bit easier.

That person had almost two hours of a head start by the time the police were first phoned. Two hours can give a person one hell of a head start.


So even if the McCanns are totally innocent in terms of doing anything to the child, they are guilty of making it very easy for an abductor by leaving three babies alone in an apartment in a foreign country and also of helping that abductor escape by not alerting the police when they thought it was an abduction.

And if they are innocent of causing harm to the child by their own hands, they have to live with the terrible fact that they made it easy for the abductor to take that child and they helped to give that abductor more time to escape by not calling the police.

cosmicfart

Pedro K wrote: »

I don't have a child (cue the "you don't understand comments"), however I have a younger brother who I regularly bring to Shamrock Rovers football matches. I never let him out of my sight when I do.

Likewise, he isn't left in the house by himself, even if the guardians are only "100 yards" away. And again, he's 13. The oldest of the kids they left alone was 3 years old, and they left the apartment unlocked. Now explain to me how I'm being "daft" please.

I dont have one either, I am a godfather to two and I feel very protective of them. However, you cant take into account that someone is out to kidnap you child, its quite impossible to defend against if someone is determined to do it. Whoever took Madeline is god knows what.....