Madeleine McCann

dark crystal · 22-03-2019 07:11PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

If your daughter was abducted on holidays.

Why would you tell lies?

What lies?

Why would you refuse to answer police questions?

They were interviewed, made statements and answered plenty of questions until they were made arguidos, on the advice of their lawyer.

Why would your statements change?

Which statements changed exactly?

Would you try to discredit the people trying to help you?

Who did they discredit and why?

Would you drink brandy with a pedophile and be happy to hear the dogs can't be used in court?

Aaah, back to the consorting with paedophiles angle I see. But we already know the McCanns didn't know anything about Freud's secret past until 2016, so your implications are designed to slur the McCanns for something they had no idea about. Beyond disingenuous.

Would you encourage your friends to stop talking to the police?

The same Police who believed their friends were criminals? Hmmm...I don't know. Their friends were free agents, I'm sure they heeded all the legal advice they got at the time and decided the best course of action all by themselves. They would get no benefit from covering up for two people involved in a heinous crime - none whatsoever.

Would you allow a man making sexual comments about your daughter bath your kids?

Another unsubstantiated slur. Perfect.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 22-03-2019 07:18PM

limnam wrote: »

If your daughter was abducted on holidays.

Why would you tell lies? - Which lies?

Why would you refuse to answer police questions? - Because the cops were trying to stitch them up, were leaking info to the tabloids and were not looking for your daughter

Why would your statements change? - Because people remember things after the fact that they may have forgot to include or realised they got the timeline wrong to help the police before they started to try and stitch you up.

Would you hire a company with no expirience of finding missing children? To find your missing daughter

Would you background check who you employed instead of spending hundreds of thousands on what are now convicted criminals? Don't understand the questions

Would you try to discredit the people trying to help you?Discredit who? If you're referring to Amaral, he did that himself

Would you drink brandy with a pedophile and be happy to hear the dogs can't be used in court? Never heard of this, please explain

Would you encourage your friends to stop talking to the police?Because the cops are leaking false info to the media

Would you allow a man making sexual comments about your daughter bath your kids? Don't know what you are talking about

Would you be happy that information was withheld from the porutuguse police for months? Don't know what you are talking about

Just a few issues that we can brush under the carpet?

Right? Wrong

Those questions are easily answered as per above

limnam · 22-03-2019 07:21PM

dark crystal wrote: »

What lies?

Plenty of them.

An example Gerry said he used he key. He later changed his story.

A lie.

dark crystal wrote: »

They were interviewed, made statements and answered plenty of questions until they were made arguidos, on the advice of their lawyer.

They refused to answer any questions once made suspects.

I don't give two fcks what the lawyer told them. It's your daughter.
Do everything in your power to get them back

If you didn't do anything, tell the truth. Stay in the country. Don;t jump ship once you're made a suspect. Put your daughter first.

dark crystal wrote: »

Which statements changed exactly?

Plenty.

Murat for example

Gerry using his key etc

dark crystal wrote: »

Who did they discredit and why?

Martin Grimes for a start.

dark crystal wrote: »

Aaah, back to the consorting with paedophiles angle I see. But we already know the McCanns didn't know anything about Freud's secret past until 2016, so your implications are designed to slur the McCanns for something they had no idea about. Beyond disingenuous.

Incorrect.
You have no idea what they knew and when. It was public knowedlge in 2016 you don't know who knew what before then. You can only assume they didn't know.

The main issue is her delight in knowing the dogs couldn't be used as evidence. The real issue. But feel free to keep the discussion on Freud

dark crystal wrote: »

The same Police who believed their friends were criminals? Hmmm...I don't know. Their friends were free agents, I'm sure they heeded all the legal advice they got at the time and decided the best course of action all by themselves. They would get no benefit from covering up for two people involved in a heinous crime - none whatsoever.

Doesn't matter what the police thought. You give any information you can to try and help. I'd say it was more likely they were all fcking up the story so Gerry asked them to stop.

You can be sure all you like about legal advice, they stated they agreed with Gerry to stop

dark crystal wrote: »

Another unsubstantiated slur. Perfect.

The statement was given by the McCanns FRIENDS.

Which was not given to the Portuguese police for months.

Why.

limnam · 22-03-2019 07:24PM

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Those questions are easily answered as per above

Considering you don't know half of what I'm talking about

Excuse me while I ignore that until you're more up to speed on the case.

maebee · 22-03-2019 07:28PM

Accident happened, parents hid body

Statement from Dr. Katherine Gaspar. This was withheld from UK police for 5 months. Very disturbing reading.

http://thegaspersstatement.blogspot.com/

Lady Poepoe · 22-03-2019 07:31PM

For all those who believe Madeleine was abducted ye should look up Criminal Profiler Pat Brown. She goes into detail how it was most likely the parents and not someone else. She is looking at the statements and McCann were behaving etc

Plumbthedepths · 22-03-2019 07:34PM

maebee wrote:

Statement from Dr. Katherine Gaspar. This was withheld from UK police for 5 months. Very disturbing reading.

Strange company the McCanns kept.

Lady Poepoe · 22-03-2019 07:35PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have wondered that too ? Is it common to tell detectives what to consider or not
Or who would even have that power ?

I think the McCann were linked into higher ups in the government. They were frineds of friends. So maybe they asked someone to take the heat off them.
What I don't understand is that they hired a con men to try track Madeleine! It's like they don't want to find her

22-03-2019 07:42PM

Something Else

TallGlass wrote: »

Can someone explain to me please and I am just wondering not picking any fight here. How exactly, do you instruct a Police force to not consider something.

So I call the Garda about say a drink driver, but instruct them not to follow that line and maybe follow the line the driver might have been speeding.

What I am saying is. Would that not imidiately set of a red flag with even a lad out of Templemore. That lad was murdered there Garda, but sure look John definitely didn't do it so do not look into it. The Garda would I hope be looking into it!

Nobody really knows. The McCanns have friends in high places. There was a lot of political interference.

Scotland Yard have admitted the parents are not suspects without any explanation why.

weldoninhio · 22-03-2019 07:57PM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Probably because she was desperate and frantic trying to rule out all possible scenarios that are flying around your head after you child has gone missing.

If you're theory is correct that the mother sedated the children, why would she request the police to administer a blood test and only bring further suspicion on herself?

They tested the kids hair. You know so little about the case but you are shouting down anyone that disagrees with you.

weldoninhio · 22-03-2019 08:08PM

Something Else

drkpower wrote: »

Which is evidence of an abduction; it doesn't mean that an abduction occurred of course. There are of course other possibilities.

There is clearly no clear evidence of what happened in this case, and who did what (or didnt). That is undoubtedly frustrating. But the tendency of people to fill that evidential gap with half baked nonsense is pointless. Sometimes crimes go unsolved and no-one knows; this looks like one of those cases.

My car keys are missing. There is no sign of them. That is clear evidence they were abducted according to you.

weldoninhio · 22-03-2019 08:17PM

Something Else

SusieBlue wrote: »

But that still doesn't explain why they'd cover up Kate & Gerry being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

They could have made statements to the PJ painting themselves in the best light regarding checks etc, and there'd still be no need to cover for the McCann's.

Its a very big ask and a very big lie. The police and media already knew they had also left their children unattended.
So why would they lie on behalf of Kate & Gerry when there was nothing to gain from it?

If your friends were responsible for their toddler disappearing into thin air, would you lie to the police to cover for them?

Maybe they weren’t covering for them and were just pawns. For example ‘One of our kids is gone missing, we need to make sure we get our story straight so we aren’t all in trouble’ type thing.

cnocbui · 22-03-2019 08:23PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

weldoninhio wrote: »

My car keys are missing. There is no sign of them. That is clear evidence they were abducted according to you.

And by your reckoning they were murdered and then disposed of without trace.

Necro · 22-03-2019 08:36PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

dark crystal wrote: »

What lies?

I know this off tangent and there's more to your response but I just wanted to focus on this one question, as it is the basis of my doubts about the Mc Canns.

The lies, to me - are:

1. Checking on the children every '20 minutes or so'. Even that basic statement is a mistruth in itself. I don't believe for a second that the Mc Canns or their party checked on the children as often as they stated.

Why lie about it - the worst has already happened.

2. Initially going on about the window, telling family members it had been smashed.

Why tell mistruths, particularly about the window?

3. Changing the story to being about leaving the door open.

Why leave that out in the first place?

These are the three issues that have me doubting any of their story. One single lie delays investigations and sends them in the wrong direction.

In abduction cases - time is everything.

I still believe that she was more than likely abducted, but the three above issues are still at the centre point. And when the lies are told in the first place, why on earth should anyone of a rational mindset believe anything that comes out of their mouths after that point?

dark crystal · 22-03-2019 08:46PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Plenty of them.

An example Gerry said he used he key. He later changed his story.

A lie.

Wow, lock him up! (Excuse the pun) We've already discussed how certain inconsistencies could happen in anyone's story, given the stressful events of the night. Presenting it as a deliberate lie is no more than supposition based on the fact you dislike the McCanns.

They refused to answer any questions once made suspects.

I don't give two fcks what the lawyer told them. It's your daughter.
Do everything in your power to get them back

So your assertion that they refused to answer questions is false? Great!

You refer only to the fact they stopped answering questions after they were made official suspects. That is accepted and valid reasons have been given why.
Also when in a foreign country and suspected of committing a crime, not giving 'two fcks' about your lawyer's advice is a very foolhardy thing to do. You'd be an idiot not to heed your lawyer's advice in such a situation.

If you didn't do anything, tell the truth. Stay in the country. Don;t jump ship once you're made a suspect. Put your daughter first.

Again, it's just your assertion they weren't telling the truth.

Jump ship? They left an increasingly hostile situation with their children after being accused of the unthinkable. They believed their daughter's disappearance was not being handled correctly in Portugal and decided to take matters into their own hands from thereon in.

Incorrect.
You have no idea what they knew and when. It was public knowedlge in 2016 you don't know who knew what before then. You can only assume they didn't know.

Assuming makes an ass out of u & me. You should be very careful making insinuations that you cannot back up with fact. The fact you have repeated it only discredits everything else you say.

The main issue is her delight in knowing the dogs couldn't be used as evidence. The real issue. But feel free to keep the discussion on Freud

You're the one who brought up their 'relationship' in the first place. Why bring it up at all if the discussion of it bothers you?

Doesn't matter what the police thought. You give any information you can to try and help. I'd say it was more likely they were all fcking up the story so Gerry asked them to stop.

More assumptions...

The statement was given by the McCanns FRIENDS.

Which was not given to the Portuguese police for months.

Why.

One person took a comment a certain way on one particular occasion. It does not make it a fact and the man in question has never been convicted of a crime, so perhaps you could afford him the same right to innocence you give to Robert Murat.

gozunda · 22-03-2019 08:56PM

Something Else

Necro wrote: »

I know this off tangent and there's more to your response but I just wanted to focus on this one question, as it is the basis of my doubts about the Mc Canns.

The lies, to me - are:
1. Checking on the children every '20 minutes or so'. Even that basic statement is a mistruth in itself. I don't believe for a second that the Mc Canns or their party checked on the children as often as they stated.
Why lie about it - the worst has already happened.
2. Initially going on about the window, telling family members it had been smashed.
Why tell mistruths, particularly about the window?
3. Changing the story to being about leaving the door open.
Why leave that out in the first place?
These are the three issues that have me doubting any of their story. One single lie delays investigations and sends them in the wrong direction.

In abduction cases - time is everything.
I still believe that she was more than likely abducted, but the three above issues are still at the centre point. And when the lies are told in the first place, why on earth should anyone of a rational mindset believe anything that comes out of their mouths after that point?

For me one a significant and troubling issue is the deliberate deletion of the weeks call histories by both Kate and Gerry McCann up to and including the day of the child's disappearance. And it's not even that they were just clearing down their phones - it is evident that selective stuff was wiped. Why would you do that - if there is nothing to hide? They have also never explained why they both did this

I can't decide whether they were by turns just being arrogant or stupid by ignoring police direction and their running to mainstream media. Then publishing details of their daughter which they were advised not to do as it would potentially endanger her if she was still alive.

And to cap it all off - attempting to steer the course of the investigation towards abduction without reference to any other possibilities. Then getting annoyed when the police attempted to push back to maintain a professional distance whilst undertaking the investigation.

From her book etc I get the impression that despite a good education etc Kate is naive. Gerry not so much. Tbh I dont like or dislike either of them, but at the end of the day I cannot understand how they could decide to leave children unsupervised in an unlocked apartment adjacent to the road instead of employing a nanny etc.

The whole shooting match is just inexplicable imo.

dark crystal · 22-03-2019 08:58PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Lady Poepoe wrote: »

I think the McCann were linked into higher ups in the government. They were frineds of friends. So maybe they asked someone to take the heat off them.

A newbie who immediately wants to direct posters to an anti-McCann site. Okey doke.

Now, if you have proof of these friends in high places, you should post it. Otherwise it sounds just like another crazy conspiracy theory thrown around to discredit the McCanns. Almost like something that might be suggested on an anti-McCann site or something.

scamalert · 22-03-2019 08:58PM

Anyone know if its true that resort had night creche that had no cost and was included in the booking to leave kids until close to midnight ?

As id assume if it was the case and kids were crying night before any non brain dead parent would be sensible enough to use it, instead they bothered not - nothing wrong with that it seems.

dark crystal · 22-03-2019 09:00PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

scamalert wrote: »

Anyone know if its true that that resort had night creche that had no cost and was included in the booking to leave kids until close to midnight ?

As id assume if it was the case and kids were crying night before any non brain dead parent would be sensible enough to use it, instead they bothered not - nothing wrong with that it seems.

This has been discussed at length. If you really want to recontinue down this line, maybe read back on the thread.

scamalert · 22-03-2019 09:02PM

dark crystal wrote: »

This has been discussed at length. If you really want to recontinue down this line, maybe read back on the thread.

go back what hundred pages smth, to see back and forth its simple question.

Plumbthedepths · 22-03-2019 09:02PM

scamalert wrote:

Anyone know if its true that resort had night creche that had no cost and was included in the booking to leave kids until close to midnight ?

There was a night crÃ¨che as to cost no idea. The sighting by J Tanner was of a man whom had collected his child from the crÃ¨che.

maebee · 22-03-2019 09:09PM

Accident happened, parents hid body

According to Kate McCann on Sky News, Madeleine asked her "Where were you when Sean and I cried last night?". KM shrugged her shoulders and said it was just a passing remark. Then they went and did the same thing the following night. Incredible. Poor kids

gozunda · 22-03-2019 09:20PM

Something Else

scamalert wrote: »

Anyone know if its true that resort had night creche that had no cost and was included in the booking to leave kids until close to midnight ?

As id assume if it was the case and kids were crying night before any non brain dead parent would be sensible enough to use it, instead they bothered not - nothing wrong with that it seems.

According to at least of the TW resort employees Jacquiline Williams (a pre school teacher) interviewed by the Portuguese Police

When questioned she said that the crêche also offered a free service permitting parents to leave their children in the care of the crêche workers during dinner between 19.15 and 23.00

So yes it would appear that the night creche was free for guests ...

Plumbthedepths · 22-03-2019 09:29PM

gozunda wrote:

So yes it would appear that the night creche was free for guests ...

Bizarre that this was not used, instead of the musical cheers scenario they engaged in. Although in fairness we are expected to believe checks happened at precisely timed intervals despite the presence of alcohol.

chicorytip · 22-03-2019 09:31PM

Something Else

maebee wrote:

Statement from Dr. Katherine Gaspar. This was withheld from UK police for 5 months. Very disturbing reading.

There is nothing in it. This gesture made by Payne could have referred to anything other than something sexual involving Madeleine. My impression is that she was not listening particularly closely to the conversation between Payne and McCann and, therefore, misinterpreted their words, the gesture itself and the context in which it was made. So, they could have been talking about anything other than what she thought they were talking about. She later states that Payne behaved appropriately at all times when around the children, was liked by and was popular with them and in no way could be regarded as "creepy".

iamwhoiam · 22-03-2019 09:33PM

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

scamalert wrote: »

Anyone know if its true that resort had night creche that had no cost and was included in the booking to leave kids until close to midnight ?

As id assume if it was the case and kids were crying night before any non brain dead parent would be sensible enough to use it, instead they bothered not - nothing wrong with that it seems.

In Praia da Luz the night creche was free for clients of Mark Warner Ocean Club
The nannies from the creche also were available to babysit in the apartment for a fee .
In P da L a walk around checking on sleeping kids was not offered as it was not considered safe due to the spread out layout of the apartments .

limnam · 22-03-2019 09:41PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Wow, lock him up! (Excuse the pun) We've already discussed how certain inconsistencies could happen in anyone's story, given the stressful events of the night. Presenting it as a deliberate lie is no more than supposition based on the fact you dislike the McCanns.

You asked for an example, you were given one.

There's inconsistencies and lies all over the place. If you want to attach them all down to the stress. Grand.

I don't know the McCanns you're assuming I don't know like them and I know you like don't like assumptions...

dark crystal wrote: »

So your assertion that they refused to answer questions is false? Great!

It's boring.

While been questioned as suspects in their daughters disappearance they refused to answer questions. As I said, no lawyer on the planet would prevent me from withholding information that may lead to me finding my daughter. If I go to prison, so be it.

dark crystal wrote: »

Jump ship? They left an increasingly hostile situation with their children after being accused of the unthinkable. They believed their daughter's disappearance was not being handled correctly in Portugal and decided to take matters into their own hands from thereon in.

They jumped ship as they were more worried about themselves than thier daughter.

By taking matters into thier own hands they wasted hundreds of thousdands of peoples money on people with no expirience in finding missing kids and conmen.

Great job lads.

dark crystal wrote: »

Assuming makes an ass out of u & me. You should be very careful making insinuations that you cannot back up with fact. The fact you have repeated it only discredits everything else you say.

You made the assumption they didn't know.

I said he was a pedophile.

You said they didn't know, you're assuming that.

We don't know if they knew. Fact.

dark crystal wrote: »

You're the one who brought up their 'relationship' in the first place. Why bring it up at all if the discussion of it bothers you?

But you never tackle the part were she's happy the dogs can't be used in court. As normal you're very selective when you decide to reply to questions on their abnormal behavior.

dark crystal wrote: »

One person took a comment a certain way on one particular occasion. It does not make it a fact and the man in question has never been convicted of a crime, so perhaps you could afford him the same right to innocence you give to Robert Murat.

A close friend of the McCanns who has been on holiday and spent time around the man has was concerned enough to go to the police who witheld the information for months. Why.

Have stated before there's all sorts of wrong with Murat imho.

Spanish Eyes · 22-03-2019 09:42PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Bizarre that this was not used, instead of the musical cheers scenario they engaged in. Although in fairness we are expected to believe checks happened at precisely timed intervals despite the presence of alcohol.

I think the night creche was not used because the inebriated parents would have had to carry their kids home from there and they might wake and be disruptive, and then they would have to put them back to sleep, or something.

Easier to just jump up from the table mid sentence at precisely every 30 minutes or whatever it was than do that surely.

I doubt there were any checks until Kate went back. She was probably checking to see where Gerry was, he apparently was missing for an hour to watch the football according to one of the group. Woops. Window of opportunity.

But we will never know. The reason threads like this continue is because it is such a mystery. So to my mind as long as posters are civil it doesn't matter how bizarre the theories are. That is inevitable.

But to me the parents are cold fish. That doesn't mean they did anything wrong, but my suspicions are on them quite frankly. Accident following administration of piriton (otc anti histamine with drowsy qualities) and a subsequent OMG cover up.

I have my eye on that fella David Payne I think his name is, that bathed the kids, and went to check and didn't actually check at all. Antenna up there too.

Sorry for the little girl, but it really is a fascinating mystery all the same.

Lady Poepoe · 22-03-2019 09:43PM

chicorytip wrote: »

There is nothing in it. This gesture made by Payne could have referred to anything other than something sexual involving Madeleine. My impression is that she was not listening particularly closely to the conversation between Payne and McCann and, therefore, misinterpreted their words, the gesture itself and the context in which it was made. So, they could have been talking about anything other than what she thought they were talking about. She later states that Payne behaved appropriately at all times when around the children, was liked by and was popular with them and in no way could be regarded as "creepy".

All of these "friends" were letting eachother bathe their children. So basically letting other adults touch be normal. Taken down the barriers of having other adults touch them. For you to be so flippant about it. What if Payne did those gestures? What if the McCann were testing that family out? To see if they were on the same sick page?
I do think Payne played a role in this. Was his phone checked? Maybe he could have easily went to the dumping area on his way back to Gerry from the flat.
Most sexual attacks happen to be by people who the children think are nice and friendly. Most are known relatives and family friends

gozunda · 22-03-2019 09:43PM

Something Else

chicorytip wrote: »

There is nothing in it. This gesture made by Payne could have referred to anything other than something sexual involving Madeleine. My impression is that she was not listening particularly closely to the conversation between Payne and McCann and, therefore, misinterpreted their words, the gesture itself and the context in which it was made. So, they could have been talking about anything other than what she thought they were talking about. She later states that Payne behaved appropriately at all times when around the children, was liked by and was popular with them and in no way could be regarded as "creepy".

Her husband was also interviewed by the police about this. I dont believe they both misinterpreted his words tbh. She talks of the comments being inappropriate or words to that effect. The fact that they both felt it was of sufficient seriousness to report this to the police in light of what happened.

She also mentions this individuals liking of bathing children other than his own. Don't know about you but that and the comments are enough to set at least some alarm bells ringing down the back tbh.

Madeleine McCann

Comments