Late Late Show 13-5-11

JonathanAnon

amdublin wrote: »

Ha ha DLB let the cat out of the bag though with his "afternoon" slip :P

I thought it worth of uploading..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdokO5QPpIE

(there's no image as my digital TV is down, and my analog picture is awful)..

Thanks to Ryan for keeping RTE honest...

Sir Oxman

amdublin wrote: »

YES!!!

Standard practice.
Pre-Madeleine of course.

Very easy for us all to demonise the McCanns with the benefit of hindsight.

Not in my social and family circle it wasn't (and still isn't)

amdublin

gambiaman wrote: »

Not in my social and family circle it wasn't (and still isn't)

Did you read the question I was replying to which I quoted

Appleblossom42 wrote: »

What is this, are you saying that it's the norm on some holidays for children to be left on their own, while staff just listen at all the doors occasionally? Surely hotels etc don't offer this as a service.:eek:

amdublin wrote: »

YES!!!

Standard practice.
Pre-Madeleine of course.

Very easy for us all to demonise the McCanns with the benefit of hindsight.

Many hotels did not offer full babysitting services but instead offered baby listening services.

Common practice.....in the past...pre-Madeleine.

angel01

I don't usually watch the Late Late but I watched Kate & Gerry on the RTE player this morning.

I don't think they had any part in what happened to Maddie and it is an incredibly sad story but if I had to hear one more "this in my book, read the book etc etc", it was very off putting.

Kate really does look broken and it must be incredibly hard to cope with the situation they find themselves in. I really hope one day, Maddie is found. But what gets me is why is this little girl so special, millions of children are missing/stolen/abducted every day but they never get the media attention she does...

amdublin

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I thought it worth of uploading..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdokO5QPpIE

(there's no image as my digital TV is down, and my analog picture is awful)..

Thanks to Ryan for keeping RTE honest...

Ha ha ha! Excellent JonAnon!

Sir Oxman

amdublin wrote: »

Did you read the question I was replying to which I quoted





.

I did pick you up wrong there, amdublin.

Appleblossom42

amdublin wrote: »

YES!!!

Standard practice.
Pre-Madeleine of course.

Very easy for us all to demonise the McCanns with the benefit of hindsight.

Serious? I can't believe people would do this, even a babysitting service on holidays to me is mind boggling. It's leaving your children with strangers or people you've only just met, I would highly regard that as neglectful also. I have been on holidays where the parents are drinking at the bar all night leaving the kids in the hotel room where they end up running up and down corridors all night. These parents have had a lot of luck on their sides I must say. I was shocked at Kate, she looks like a broken woman and I've heard them say on occasion that they would never leave their twins on their own and regretted leaving them alone that horrible night. I can't prove it, it was some interviews over the years. I would hate to be inside their heads. it must be absolute torture.

Calico101

Watching the McCanns last night made me sick. I STRONGLY believe they had something to do with Madeleine's appearance and they certainly have a motive in perpetuating the abduction story. The fact is that Madeleine is MISSING, not abducted. There is not one shred of evidence that she was abducted - apart from some ridic 'sighting' by one of their friends of a swarthy man carrying her away (like, isn't that just SO convenient????)

They have motive and they had the opportunity to concoct the abduction theory. Sniffer dogs detected the scent of a CORPSE in their apartment and car. That cannot be a coincidence.

Then there is their EXTREMELY strange and troubling behaviour. The shifty body language and endless tear-less crying. They talk about 'grieving' for Madeleine. I'm sorry, but you don't grieve a child that is missing. You simply would not entertain the notion of grieving. There have been so many examples of them lying on in interviews. Smirking, touching their nose, being deliberately evasive etc. etc. I cannot believe so many people seem to believe them. Even last night Kate McCann gave herself away...

Tubridy: So Kate, how did you KNOW that Madeleine was taken when you went into the bedoom?
Kate McC: The shutters were up and the window open. I'm not lying about that.

I think that these people are liars and they know what happened to their daughter. I hope that one day they are brought to justice.

SuperInfinity

Calico101 wrote: »

Tubridy: So Kate, how did you KNOW that Madeleine was taken when you went into the bedoom?
Kate McC: The shutters were up and the window open. I'm not lying about that.

I think that these people are liars and they know what happened to their daughter. I hope that one day they are brought to justice.

Yeah, you don't "KNOW" something like that the second you go in. You think she must have gotten out somehow, or maybe she got sick all of a sudden and called for help. It could have been anything. I love it how she had an elaborate story prepared for how she knew she was abducted straightaway. Maybe a girl a few years older helped her out.

I mean, it's not something that would ever be on your mind. If she was paranoid about abduction like that they would never have let her there to begin with. Not... "Where's Madeleine, omg she must have been abducted by someone!!!"

BlaasForRafa

furiousox wrote: »

Ok but you still haven't answered my question.
How and when did they dispose of the body when the media and possibly local police were watching them 27/7 ?

27/7? Are you living on a different planet or something?

At a guess I'd say weighted down with chains, in a bin liner, over a cliff into the ocean.

michael999999

Why would any parent when asked were they involved in the disapearence of there child,not answer "certainly not and to be honest im f***ing insulted to be asked that question". To answer "read the book" is disgusting and an insult to there missing daughter.

Tubridy should have nailed him there and then to answer the question, instead of letting him off with it. Is the father afraid to answer it,is he afraid of breaking down and maybe letting something slip.

There is something about him that makes me think he knows what happened maddie!

amdublin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

27/7? Are you living on a different planet or something?

At a guess I'd say weighted down with chains, in a bin liner, over a cliff into the ocean.

And when did they do this

Greentopia

Calico101 wrote: »

Watching the McCanns last night made me sick. I STRONGLY believe they had something to do with Madeleine's appearance...

I've been reading up more on the case this morning and it seems the Portuguese police did such an inept job in obtaining and examining forensic evidence it's not surprising they found little evidence. They just wanted them to go away so they wouldn't hurt their tourist industry.
The British experts that were brought in found some blood samples in the apartment but the results were inconclusive.
What evidence is there that makes you so sure the parents were involved, apart from a gut feeling?
They were cleared of any involvement in her disappearance by the police because of lack of evidence.

Calico101 wrote: »

Sniffer dogs detected the scent of a CORPSE in their apartment and car. That cannot be a coincidence.

Sniffer dogs cannot be used to establish a case, only to support one.
The dog handler in the case himself admitted the animals offered no more than "a guide".
Traces of blood can last a hundred years or more as evidence so basically what the dog identified could have been anyones blood who ever stayed in that apartment.
Also the police only brought sniffer dogs in to investigate months afterwards, after several other people had stayed in the apartment which means any evidence found by the dogs is totally compromised.
Also if there was a deceased body in that apartment there would be scent all over the apartment not in one small area behind the couch as was the case.

Calico101 wrote: »

Then there is their EXTREMELY strange and troubling behaviour. The shifty body language and endless tear-less crying. They talk about 'grieving' for Madeleine. I'm sorry, but you don't grieve a child that is missing. You simply would not entertain the notion of grieving. There have been so many examples of them lying on in interviews. Smirking, touching their nose, being deliberately evasive etc. etc. I cannot believe so many people seem to believe them. Even last night Kate McCann gave herself away...

What sources do you have that proves that they lied in interviews?
I didn't see any shifty behaviour or smirking last night. I just saw an aged and gaunt woman who -as someone else put looked like a broken woman. I say a husband who probably wants to stay strong for his wife and remaining kids.

Yes they are self-possessed and in control of their emotions in public but so what? many people show little public displays of emotion. You can't extrapolate anything from that. Also they're British middle-class. Stiff-upper lip and all that.

They're probably doing their best to keep it together in public (and they were advised to do so before their first public appeal for help) but how they behave in private could be quite different. Kate said last night her husband was on the floor in tears after it happened.
And actually I do remember her crying on Oprah.

What you say reminds me of the protagonist in Albert Camus's book The Outsider-condemned to death for a murder because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral.
That book reminded me of the folly of judging peoples actions based only on whether they conform to social mores or not.

Tubridy: So Kate, how did you KNOW that Madeleine was taken when you went into the bedoom?
Kate McC: The shutters were open. I mean, I'm not lying about that.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you have a case of confirmation bias judging from everything else you've said, only looking for evidence that supports your beliefs about them.

casio4

there was a thing early on in the case where they said that Gerry went off for a walk around 6pm on his own for an hour before they went for dinner

Greentopia

michael999999 wrote: »

Why would any parent when asked were they involved in the disapearence of there child,not answer "certainly not and to be honest im f***ing insulted to be asked that question". To answer "read the book" is disgusting and an insult to there missing daughter.

Tubridy should have nailed him there and then to answer the question, instead of letting him off with it. Is the father afraid to answer it,is he afraid of breaking down and maybe letting something slip.

There is something about him that makes me think he knows what happened maddie!

It definitely looked bad and I thought the same thing but I don't think it proves anything. He appeared from what I saw to have just blurted it out without thinking.
Maybe he's sick of questions like that or couldn't elaborate enough in the way he wanted on live(ish!) TV? shrugs

Oh and as the parents themselves say, it's Madeleine, not Maddie-that's the tabloids trying to make her sound more working class (not that there's anything wrong with the name Maddie) to appeal to it's readership and to make her more child-like and vulnerable. I hate emotionally manipulative crap like that. They did the same thing with James Bulger. His name was never "Jamie".

amdublin

casio4 wrote: »

there was a thing early on in the case where they said that Gerry went off for a walk around 6pm on his own for an hour before they went for dinner

Whats your point casio

SuperInfinity

Greentopia wrote: »

What you say reminds me of the protagonist in Albert Camus's book The Outsider-condemned to death for a murder because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral.

Greentopia, that is a really bad move. Don't spoil books for people out of the blue, jeez.

Greentopia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Greentopia, that is a really bad move. Don't spoil books for people out of the blue, jeez.

You jest I assume??
Difficult to tell tone online.

SuperInfinity

Greentopia wrote: »

You jest I assume??
Difficult to tell tone online.

No. I hadn't read it myself but I highly suspected that sounded like a spoiler. I have now spoiled the whole thing for myself by reading the plot summary and yes that is a total spoiler.

You don't seriously think it's okay to go around spoiling things for people like that?

casio4

amdublin wrote: »

Whats your point casio

sorry forgot to put in the quote with it, i was referring to when would they have disposed of the body Gerry had an hour to do it(i'm not saying he did) but i'm 50/50 as to whether they did it or not there is a good argument for both sides

furiousox

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

27/7? Are you living on a different planet or something?
At a guess I'd say weighted down with chains, in a bin liner, over a cliff into the ocean.

27/7?
It was a typo, I humbly apologise.
Nice theory...yeah I'm the one on a different planet. :rolleyes:

michael999999

Greentopia wrote: »

It definitely looked bad and I thought the same thing but I don't think it proves anything. He appeared from what I saw to have just blurted it out without thinking.
Maybe he's sick of questions like that or couldn't elaborate enough in the way he wanted on live(ish!) TV? shrugs

Oh and as the parents themselves say, it's Madeleine, not Maddie-that's the tabloids trying to make her sound more working class (not that there's anything wrong with the name Maddie) to appeal to it's readership and to make her more child-like and vulnerable. I hate emotionally manipulative crap like that. They did the same thing with James Bulger. His name was never "Jamie".

The man is a highly educated doctor,he can surely think on hes feet and string a sentence together!

Greentopia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

No. I hadn't read it myself but I highly suspected that sounded like a spoiler. I have now spoiled the whole thing for myself by reading the plot summary and yes that is a total spoiler.

You don't seriously think it's okay to go around spoiling things for people like that?

Oh for heavens sake.
I mentioned some events that happened in a classic work of fiction to make a point. A work that's been in the public domain for over 60 years ago, analysed and critiqued endless times in universities, books and journals, newspaper articles etc worldwide since then and you think I should have put a spoiler notice up? :rolleyes:

How did I "spoiled the whole thing"? If I'd said "this is the entire plot from start to finish" then maybe you would have a point but I didn't.
You just assumed I did.
Anyway as a great philosophical work the importance of the novel lies much more in the layers of meaning and the intent of the writer rather than the plot itself. The plot is just a devise to impart his philosophy of the absurd.
If you read it you'll find that out for yourself.
But having said that I apologise if I have spoiled anything about it for you.

Greentopia

michael999999 wrote: »

The man is a highly educated doctor,he can surely think on hes feet and string a sentence together!

Sure. I don't know, I'm just offering suggestions as to why he may have said it, that's all.
Maybe he's just sick of answering that question or got defensive because it has an accusatory tone and that was his knee-jerk reaction. Who know's.
Like I said earlier, I thought it was ill-judged.

SuperInfinity

Greentopia wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake.
I mentioned some events that happened in a classic work of fiction to make a point. A work that's been in the public domain for over 60 years ago, analysed and critiqued endless times in universities, books and journals, newspaper articles etc worldwide since then and you think I should have put a spoiler notice up? :rolleyes:

Don't give me your rolleyes, it's you who are in the wrong here. When's the last time you saw massive spoilers about great works of fiction being put in headlines in papers? When have people talked about Frankenstein's ending, or the ending of Crime and Punishment or Romeo and Juliet in the open when you have no way of avoiding it? It was just thrown into your conversation, maybe instead of being "reminded about the folly of others" you should sometimes think about the folly of yourself.

It makes absolutely no difference to the person who hasn't read it but would like to read it or watch a movie of it whether it's two days or 100 years old. You think if you go on a film forum you can just spoil old movies left, right and center?

Seriously, never give away major plot details like that.

Greentopia wrote: »

How did I "spolied the whole thing"? If I'd said "this is the entire plot from start to finish" then maybe you would have a point but I didn't.
You just assumed I did.
Anyway as a great philosophical work the importance of the novel lies much more in the layers of meaning and the intent of the writer rather than the plot itself. The plot is just a devise to impart his philosophy of the absurd.
If you read it you'll find that out for yourself.
But having said that I apologise if I have spoiled anything about it for you.

Better arguments here.

Greentopia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Don't give me your rolleyes, it's you who are in the wrong here. When's the last time you saw massive spoilers about great works of fiction being put in headlines in papers? When have people talked about Frankenstein's ending, or the ending of Crime and Punishment or Romeo and Juliet in the open when you have no way of avoiding it? It was just thrown into your conversation, maybe instead of being "reminded about the folly of others" you should sometimes think about the folly of yourself.

I see, even though I've apologised I see you want your pound of flesh.
Oops, have I just given away the entire plot of the Merchant of Venice??
I'll say it again-I never said what I wrote was the ending or the entire plot (I specifically didn't say that), you've just assumed that! You said I "spoiled the whole thing for yourself". How do you know I've done so unless you know for certain I've told you the whole plot?
Oh and I'll choose the emoticons I see fit to use, thank you.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It makes absolutely no difference to the person who hasn't read it but would like to read it or watch a movie of it whether it's two days or 100 years old. You think if you go on a film forum you can just spoil old movies left, right and center?

But this isn't a book forum so your analogy fails.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Better arguments here.

Thank you for the 'critique' but I see you didn't address the arguments I made in it or acknowledge my apology so now if you don't mind I've said all I wish to say on the matter and don't want to derail the thread further and my time is up online for today anyway.
Have a nice evening.

SuperInfinity

Greentopia wrote: »

I'll say it again-I never said what I wrote was the ending or the entire plot (I specifically didn't say that), you've just assumed that! You said I "spoiled the whole thing for yourself".

No I didn't. I said I spoiled it for myself by checking the plot summary to see if you had spoiled it (yes it does make sense...) The reason I went and did this is because you seemed adamant that you had not spoiled it by your first reply. You sounded like it was a ridiculous assertion to make.

Greentopia wrote: »

But this isn't a book forum so your analogy fails.

The analogy does not fail.

The fact that we're not a book forum just makes your spoiling of it out of the blue even worse.

iamwhoiam

Every time I see the Mc Canns interview I want the interviewer to pose just one simple question
"Did you leave your credit cards and cash in the apartment , open on the table .? If it was safe enough for three small children surely it was safe enough for cash ? "

Was Kates jewellery left lieing on the locker I wonder ?Or did they secure it before going out every evening .

Calico101

Greentopia wrote: »

I've been reading up more on the case this morning and it seems the Portuguese police did such an inept job in obtaining and examining forensic evidence it's not surprising they found little evidence. They just wanted them to go away so they wouldn't hurt their tourist industry.
The British experts that were brought in found some blood samples in the apartment but the results were inconclusive.
What evidence is there that makes you so sure the parents were involved, apart from a gut feeling?
They were cleared of any involvement in her disappearance by the police because of lack of evidence.



Sniffer dogs cannot be used to establish a case, only to support one.
The dog handler in the case himself admitted the animals offered no more than "a guide".
Traces of blood can last a hundred years or more as evidence so basically what the dog identified could have been anyones blood who ever stayed in that apartment.
Also the police only brought sniffer dogs in to investigate months afterwards, after several other people had stayed in the apartment which means any evidence found by the dogs is totally compromised.
Also if there was a deceased body in that apartment there would be scent all over the apartment not in one small area behind the couch as was the case.



What sources do you have that proves that they lied in interviews?
I didn't see any shifty behaviour or smirking last night. I just saw an aged and gaunt woman who -as someone else put looked like a broken woman. I say a husband who probably wants to stay strong for his wife and remaining kids.

Yes they are self-possessed and in control of their emotions in public but so what? many people show little public displays of emotion. You can't extrapolate anything from that. Also they're British middle-class. Stiff-upper lip and all that.

They're probably doing their best to keep it together in public (and they were advised to do so before their first public appeal for help) but how they behave in private could be quite different. Kate said last night her husband was on the floor in tears after it happened.
And actually I do remember her crying on Oprah.

What you say reminds me of the protagonist in Albert Camus's book The Outsider-condemned to death for a murder because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral.
That book reminded me of the folly of judging peoples actions based only on whether they conform to social mores or not.

Tubridy: So Kate, how did you KNOW that Madeleine was taken when you went into the bedoom?
Kate McC: The shutters were open. I mean, I'm not lying about that.

On the Portugeuse police being completely inept, on that I agree. However, as far as I remember, the McCanns were not cleared, the case was shelved - there's a difference. The evidence given by the sniffer dogs is incontrovertible. They did detect the scent of a CORPSE in that apartment. If not Madeleine's then, who's? Same for the hire car. (Remember the McCann's line of defence when confronted with that? THey said they were transporting rotting meat in the boot. Were it me, I'd want to know who had hired the car before me, but maybe that's just daft...) Regarding proof, what there is absolutely ZERO evidence for is an abduction. Madeleine is missing. That does not equal an abduction. Why do you think they (the McCanns) talked of grieving for Madeleine? Like, this was only a few weeks after she was taken. A parent who's child was abducted would never speak in such terms. I'm sorry, if the riddle gets solved and the parents are shown not to be involved, then I will gladly eat my words. To think that they may be responsible and carried on with this chararde is a horrible thought, but sadly that's what I think. I just don't believe them.

amdublin

Calico101 wrote: »

On the Portugeuse police being completely inept, on that I agree. However, as far as I remember, the McCanns were not cleared, the case was shelved - there's a difference. The evidence given by the sniffer dogs is incontrovertible. They did detect the scent of a CORPSE in that apartment. If not Madeleine's then, who's? Same for the hire car. (Remember the McCann's line of defence when confronted with that? THey said they were transporting rotting meat in the boot. Were it me, I'd want to know who had hired the car before me, but maybe that's just daft...) Regarding proof, what there is absolutely ZERO evidence for is an abduction. Madeleine is missing. That does not equal an abduction. Why do you think they (the McCanns) talked of grieving for Madeleine? Like, this was only a few weeks after she was taken. A parent who's child was abducted would never speak in such terms. I'm sorry, if the riddle gets solved and the parents are shown not to be involved, then I will gladly eat my words. To think that they may be responsible and carried on with this chararde is a horrible thought, but sadly that's what I think. I just don't believe them.

Excuse me?!

Do you have any link to where they said they were transporting rotting meat?

I had not heard this before

Please post evidence / a link confirming this