Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mistyeyes321 · 03-06-2011 08:16PM

PapaQuebec wrote: »

"MAJORCA, SEPTEMBER 2005

Madeleine McCann is two and a half years old and the twins just a few months when they go on holiday to Majorca with their parents. Three couples and their children go with them: David and Fiona Payne with their one-year-old daughter (Fiona is pregnant with their second child); S. and T., with their two children aged 1 and 3; finally S.G. and K.G., who have a one and a half year old daughter, E. (K.G., is also expecting a child). The trip was organised by David Payne. The latter rented a villa big enough to accommodate all of them.

S.G. got to know Madeleine's mother at university in Dundee, between 1987 and 1992. K.G. met Gerry McCann for the first time at his wedding to Kate in 1998. They become good friends, see each other regularly, spend weekends together and phone each other often.

After dinner on the third or fourth evening in Majorca, the friends are all settled on the patio. They are having a drink and chatting when K.G. witnesses a scene which flabbergasts her and makes her fear for the safety of her daughter and the other children.

She is sitting between Gerry McCann and David Payne when she hears the latter ask if she - probably Madeleine - did "that": he then puts a finger in his mouth and begins sucking it while putting it in and out - the sexual connotation is obvious - while with the other hand, he traces small small circles around his nipple in an explicitly provocative way. While K.G., stupefied, regards Gerry and David, an uneasy silences settles around the table. Then they all start chatting again as if nothing happened. K.G. starts to distrust the way David Payne relates to the little ones. On another occasion, she sees David Payne making the same gestures while speaking about his own daughter. At this time, it's the fathers who give the children their baths, but K.G. no longer lets Payne near her daughter. After the holiday, K.G. will only meet the Paynes on one occasion, and she will not speak to them. Over the next two years, relations between K.G., S.G. and the McCanns becomes distanced; they will only see each other now at children's birthday parties.

This witness statement from the couple, S.G. and K.G., is taken by the English police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine's disappearance. That information, very important for the progress of the investigation, was never sent to the Portuguese police.

When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements -, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.

It will only be after my removal from the investigation, in October 2007, that this statement will finally be sent to the Portuguese police. Why did the British keep it secret for more than six months? It is all the more surprising that David Payne, who had planned the trip to Majorca - of whom it was known that his behaviour towards the children was, to say the least, questionable -, is the same person who organised the holiday in Portugal, that he is one of those closest to Madeleine and that he is the first friend of the family to have been seen with Kate McCann just after the disappearance (we will talk further about this). He was still present in Vila da Luz when the English police received that witness statement: why wasn't he interviewed immediately?

Without doubt, the Portuguese police could have made progress with the investigation thanks to that lead: such behaviour would merit close attention. Were we looking in the right direction? Might we have established a link with the events of May 3rd? It is difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses." Goncarlo Amaral

I couldn't agree more!

Seriously this statement knock's me sick...I can't tell you how Angry I feel this was ignored..What possible explanation could anyone come up with of why this wasn't given to the PJ? & i'm seriously now thinking it doesn't matter how much SY investigate this Case it's going to be the same old same old...Cover- up Cover- up!

maebee · 03-06-2011 08:23PM

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/03/mccann-case-freedom-of-information-act.html

Daily Express: Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns
3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)

A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Mad*eleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.

The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”. The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.

Diplomats on the Algarve were told the McCanns had to be “accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police” by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK. The letter, sent just days after Madeleine disappeared, warns of the risks of siding with the McCanns so completely. Excerpts published in a report by La Derniere Heure quote the diplomat as saying: “With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. “Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous *message.”

A huge team of diplomats have been involved in the case since Gerry McCann asked the Foreign Office for help. In an unprecedented move, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair despatched special envoy Sheree Dodd, a former Fleet Street journalist, to Portugal to act as a “med*ia liaison officer” for the McCann family. Direct government communications with the McCanns came to an abrupt halt, however, when the couple were made official suspects in the case in September.

Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family’s holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends. The couple have always said they had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance. The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.

Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. Last night the Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.

PapaQuebec · 03-06-2011 08:29PM

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Seriously this statement knock's me sick...I can't tell you how Angry I feel this was ignored..What possible explanation could anyone come up with of why this wasn't given to the PJ? & i'm seriously now thinking it doesn't matter how much SY investigate this Case it's going to be the same old same old...Cover- up Cover- up!

It wasn't ignored. I've posted the quote before (maybe not in this forum) and it is only studiously ignored by TeamMcCann!!

carvaggio · 03-06-2011 08:34PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

NTMK wrote: »

what kind of logic is that?
the last thing i would do if a child went missing would be to delete phone records because there are embarrassing messages on it. They planned to wipe their phones cause there is no chance all nine just wipe their phones of their own accord

Took a quote at random (about the phones), I'm in a rush and didn't read everything...

... can I just point that having read Kate's account, and simply using common sense, from the moment they alerted their families back in the UK (and that goes for the Tapas friends too), that is, on the same night of course, their phones must have been continually beeping and ringing. Same and worse the next day, when the media got hold of the story.

People who have kids can relate I'm sure : picture the situation, you're in Portugal, Sky News shows child being abducted from British couple there, how many of your friends and relatives are going to text you and ring you in the following hours ?

Their phones must have been red hot with the activity.

So, if I'm waiting on a text from my Mum, and my phone is full, or I'm waiting on an important call from the police whose number I really want to be recorded on my phone for later, I'm going to make sure I have an empty box for the texts, and clear memory so the last number to ring me will be logged for later.

Have to go now will catch up some time !

I don't post here very often, and don't have a particular opinion as to whether the McCanns are guilty of hiding information or not. But I just felt the need to point out how nonsensical that is.

I won't claim to know what they were trying to hide, it could even be something small (contacting the media) or possibly something worse, but it's difficult to even consider what the chances are that all 9 had to create space so they could feel confident they could be in contact with the police over the next few days. I would suggest it to be significantly lower than a 1 in a million chance (and that is actually quite kind to this idea if you think about the particular circumstances required).

maebee · 03-06-2011 08:38PM

PapaQuebec wrote: »

It wasn't ignored. I've posted the quote before (maybe not in this forum) and it is only studiously ignored by TeamMcCann!!

I think that Mistyeyes means why was it ignored by the investigating team. Leicester police witheld the Gaspars' statements for almost five months, until Amaral was removed. Pertinent statements were witheld, the doubting Diplomat was removed.
It is very difficult to see anything other than the protection of the McCanns in this tragic case. The question is why?

PapaQuebec · 03-06-2011 08:47PM

maebee wrote: »

I think that Mistyeyes means why was it ignored by the investigating team. Leicester police witheld the Gaspars' statements for almost five months, until Amaral was removed. Pertinent statements were witheld, the doubting Diplomat was removed.
It is very difficult to see anything other than the protection of the McCanns in this tragic case. The question is why?

Well I can't answer that without getting into pretty dodgy territory.

The opinion of a friend (a serving Garda with experience in the DVU and knowledge of offences involving children) that when things occur that "might be inferred but not proven by the passage quoted"(my bold), you never can tell just how many people are involved, nor what influence some on the periphery might have.

Attn mods. I do NOT suggest or imply any inappropriate behaviour by anyone involved in the case in question! You may remove this post if deemed against the rules!

Mistyeyes321 · 03-06-2011 08:55PM

maebee wrote: »

I think that Mistyeyes means why was it ignored by the investigating team. Leicester police witheld the Gaspars' statements for almost five months, until Amaral was removed. Pertinent statements were witheld, the doubting Diplomat was removed.
It is very difficult to see anything other than the protection of the McCanns in this tragic case. The question is why?

That is exactly what I meant (Maebee) Brought tears to my eyes so upsetting! How can this not have been passed to the PJ? No excuses what so ever, Disgracefull:mad:

maebee · 03-06-2011 09:00PM

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

That is exactly what I meant (Maebee) Brought tears to my eyes so upsetting! How can this not have been passed to the PJ? No excuses what so ever, Disgracefull:mad:

I know how you feel Misty. When I first became aware of this in 2008 I was in shock for a very long time. I feel that the Gaspars' Statements are at the heart of this tragic case. We can only hope that SY do a complete and thorough investigation. This little girl needs justice.

Mistyeyes321 · 03-06-2011 09:21PM

maebee wrote: »

I know how you feel Misty. When I first became aware of this in 2008 I was in shock for a very long time. I feel that the Gaspars' Statements are at the heart of this tragic case. We can only hope that SY do a complete and thorough investigation. This little girl needs justice.

She certainly does but you know the more I see the more i'm starting to think, Why all this interference? By Goverment? Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, I am coming to the point where I honestly don't think SY will come up with anything at all & if there is anything it will be swept under the Red Carpet..People can say what they like but this just isn't right & the only Victim here is this Little Girl...

iamwhoiam · 03-06-2011 09:24PM

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

That is exactly what I meant (Maebee) Brought tears to my eyes so upsetting! How can this not have been passed to the PJ? No excuses what so ever, Disgracefull:mad:

maebee wrote: »

I know how you feel Misty. When I first became aware of this in 2008 I was in shock for a very long time. I feel that the Gaspars' Statements are at the heart of this tragic case. We can only hope that SY do a complete and thorough investigation. This little girl needs justice.

The day I read that a while back was the day I wondered who did the Mc Canns know in high places . Its a damning statement and for me speaks volumes about how we can be decived by our perception of who is thrustworthy .
Then when I saw the apartment with my own two eyes I wondered what kind of parent leaves their little babies in that vulnerable and exposed danger .
Then I began to read reports and translations and watch interviews and wondered who was hiding something , as the whole body language for me is odd .I cant read them properly as interviews seem rehearsed and Gerry always watched Kate like a hawk .
Something in this whole story is not sitting right and I think many people have coped that , including PJ and diplomats and also many ordinary people .
And one little girl has paid the price and I am so very sad for Madeleine

Mistyeyes321 · 03-06-2011 09:33PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The day I read that a while back was the day I wondered who did the Mc Canns know in high places . Its a damning statement and for me speaks volumes about how we can be decived by our perception of who is thrustworthy .
Then when I saw the apartment with my own two eyes I wondered what kind of parent leaves their little babies in that vulnerable and exposed danger .
Then I began to read reports and translations and watch interviews and wondered who was hiding something , as the whole body language for me is odd .I cant read them properly as interviews seem rehearsed and Gerry always watched Kate like a hawk .
Something in this whole story is not sitting right and I think many people have coped that , including PJ and diplomats and also many ordinary people .
And one little girl has paid the price and I am so very sad for Madeleine

The only reason people are cottoning on is because there are some pretty Decent & Amasing people out there making sure the Man/Women in the street hear the other sides in this Story & not just oneside...The Edited version...Thanks to all you people on this thread including people who have Open minds too. That isn't a dig if someone happene's to believe the Mcs, Your all discussing this case & keeping it alive!

PapaQuebec · 03-06-2011 09:47PM

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

She certainly does but you know the more I see the more i'm starting to think, Why all this interference? By Goverment? Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, I am coming to the point where I honestly don't think SY will come up with anything at all & if there is anything it will be swept under the Red Carpet..People can say what they like but this just isn't right & the only Victim here is this Little Girl...

"IN THE McCANNS' BEDROOM

The police who searched the house the McCanns were occupying, in particular their bedroom - the room where Gerald set up his office - report that the father and the mother are reacting very differently to the trouble that has befallen them.

Kate seems to be in mourning: numerous photos of Madeleine are pinned to the wall or placed on her bedside table. Spaced between them - as though watching over the child's soul - a representation of a saint, a crucifix or a rosary can be seen. A bookmark bearing the effigy of a saint is slipped into a copy of the Bible, opening on the second book of Samuel, chapter XII, where the following verses can be read:

"[13] "I have sinned against the Lord," David said.
Nathan replied, "The Lord forgives you; you will not die. [14] But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die." [15] Then Nathan went home.
The Lord caused the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David to become very ill.
[16] David prayed to God that the child would get well. He refused to eat anything and every night he went into his room and spent the night lying on the floor. [17] His court officials went to him and tried to make him get up, but he refused and would not eat anything with them. [18] A week later the child died, and David's officials were afraid to tell him the news. They said, "While the child was living, David wouldn't answer us when we spoke to him. How can we tell him that his child is dead? He might do himself some harm!"
[19] When David noticed them whispering to each other, he realized that the child had died. So he asked them, "Is the child dead?"
"Yes, he is," they answered.
[20] David got up from the floor, had a bath, combed his hair, and changed his clothes.
Then he went and worshiped in the house of the Lord. When he returned to the palace, he asked for food and ate it as soon as it was served. [21] "We don't understand this,"
his officials said to him. "While the child was alive, you wept for him and would not eat; but as soon as he died, you got up and ate!"
[22] "Yes," David answered, "I did fast and weep while he was still alive. I thought that the Lord might be merciful to me and not let the child die. [23] But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Could I bring the child back to life? I will someday go to where he is, but he can never come back to me."
[24] Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy [25] and commanded the Prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him."1

For David life had to go on.

In contrast, in the part of the room occupied by Gerald, the walls are bare, cold, no photos of his daughter. It's here that he administers the Madeleine Fund, organises his very busy agenda and writes his blog. His current reading material - The Interpretation of Murder, by Jed Rubenfeld, Spirit Messenger, by Gordon Smith, It's Not About The Bike: My Journey Back To Life, by Lance Armstrong, - leaves nothing at all to the imagination about the drama the family is living through. With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.

- Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children;

- Training Courses, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);

- Making Every Child Matter...Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency -
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).

COLOR="Red"]B]Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books." [/B[/COLOR

dark crystal · 03-06-2011 10:08PM

Papa Quebec - two things:

Firstly, where does that quote come from?

Secondly, if Mark Harrison wonders where Gerry McCann obtained the books, why did he not simply ask him?

PapaQuebec · 03-06-2011 10:13PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Papa Quebec - two things:

Firstly, where does that quote come from?

Secondly, if Mark Harrison wonders where Gerry McCann obtained the books, why did he not simply ask him?

The quote is from Goncarlo Amaral's book "The Truth of the Lie"

ISDW · 03-06-2011 11:02PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Papa Quebec - two things:

Firstly, where does that quote come from?

Secondly, if Mark Harrison wonders where Gerry McCann obtained the books, why did he not simply ask him?

Or he could just google them, and buy them online:D

dark crystal · 03-06-2011 11:06PM

ISDW wrote: »

Or he could just google them, and buy them online:D

Nah....not sinister enough

prinz · 03-06-2011 11:42PM

lugha wrote: »

Yes, obviously so. Definitely wrong, and possibly lying about something. But the question is, are they lying in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance (and that would be a conspiracy) or about some other shenanigans.

....and I have said that exact thing, but the thing is what other shenanigans and are they worth obstructing the investigation into your child's disappearance over? Who cares if they lying about something else, is that some reason to ignore them as suspects? Do you turn around and take their word for it that they are covering up 'shenanigans' or do you try to dig deeper and actually learn exactly what it is they are lying about and why?

lugha wrote: »

My point (and I am sorry but you have not addressed it) is that mixed up and inconsistent accounts is what I would expect if there wasn’t a conspiracy.

Yes I have addressed it repeatedly now at this stage. I said numerous times that minor inconsistencies are to be expected, and natural, it would be rare for two people to have an identical recollection of the same event. The problem in this case is that the inconsistencies are MAJOR inconsistencies, a conversation between two people that lasts 30 seconds in one of the persons account lasts 30 mins or so in the other person? Yes that's a major inconsistency. Numerous different descriptions of the same person by the same witness? Majorly inconsistent.

lugha wrote: »

If they had agreed to conceal some involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance then I would expect their stories to knit together better.

Really because a long time to actually get that story right? No they didn't. Wait has anyone actually suggested that numerous people had a conspiracy to get a single story together, no I haven't anyway. So I have no clue what keeps prompting you to post and repost the same thing over and over and then claim it hasn't been dealt with.

lugha wrote: »

You continue to throw out these inconsistencies as suspicious. But you don’t offer any way to assess the value of this evidence (or if you like, “evidence”), nor do you critique the way I assess it.

Laughable. In one ear and out the other, or in one eye out the other in this case. Want me to critique the way you assess it? Your assessment is ludicrous, you have explained everything away as oh that's an oddity, that's an oddity.

lugha wrote: »

And I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the conspiracy theory! If nobody other than the McCanns were involved then you would necessary have to admit that innocent eye-witnesses can get things horribly wrong!

You don't need to have a prearranged conspiracy theory for people to falsify statements.

lugha wrote: »

Again I distinguish between evidence and proof.

Well done you. I don't think anyone else has managed that. Sure we have proof everywhere.....:rolleyes:

lugha wrote: »

I am not demanding that evidence be conclusive, only that it be of some value.

..and I would say a body of circumstantial evidence is of some value. You are the one blindly dismissing a lot of valuable information.

lugha wrote: »

And if the observed evidence was more likely to arise on the premise that the McCanns were innocent than it were on the premise that they were not then I think that is a plausible (though imperfect, indeed flawed) to discount it. If you have a better way of evaluating evidence, then I am all eyes (ears are no help on boards ).

So you seriously think that all the things mentioned already on the thread that people find suspicious are more likely to arise if the people involved are innocent? Innocent people are more likely to have major inconsistencies in accounts of movements? Not minor, major. Innocent people are more likely wipe phone records of a number of phones belonging to a number of different people from the night a little girl goes missing? IS that the basis on which you have discounted everything so far as mere oddities rather than circumstantial evidence?

Mountainsandh · 03-06-2011 11:51PM

carvaggio wrote: »

I don't post here very often, and don't have a particular opinion as to whether the McCanns are guilty of hiding information or not. But I just felt the need to point out how nonsensical that is.

I won't claim to know what they were trying to hide, it could even be something small (contacting the media) or possibly something worse, but it's difficult to even consider what the chances are that all 9 had to create space so they could feel confident they could be in contact with the police over the next few days. I would suggest it to be significantly lower than a 1 in a million chance (and that is actually quite kind to this idea if you think about the particular circumstances required).

Nonsensical ?
Ok, Kate and Gerry only deleted them intentionally to make space then, or they might not even had had to actually even think about it.

My phone is a Nokia whatever whatever (oldish), and when the message box is full, it just comes up with a message and I just have to press enter to delete everything. I often do that automatically, don't even think about it, just to have an empty box.
As to the calls log, it simply renews itself without my knowing. I'm too lazy to go and check, but I don't think my phone can log more than 10 calls. It never asks me to delete, so I take it that on the 11th call it automatically deletes the first call, and so on...

So really, realistically, if the Tapas had more than 10 calls each that night (easy, considering the situation), their phones may have lost the logs withtout them having to delete anything. Assuming their phones were more modern than mine (in 2007), they might have stored 20 numbers ? 30 maybe ? Do you think, by the time the Portuguese police were asking to check their logs, they might have reached their 30 calls quota ?
How about texts, could their inboxes have been full (several times) by the time the PJ wanted to check ?

It's easy to lose track of reality when you're looking for suspicious bits.

My own opinion on this whole tragic situation is that the PJ really did not do their job properly, and that the whole reporting of the affair being either sourced from the PJ, or the media via the PJ, has been very much distorted and biased.

We know very little of what actually happened, what questions were actually asked, what was actually done at what time.
When we look at the 40 questions Kate refused to answer for example, we don't know what was said to her off record before the interview.

She does say in her book that she was advised by their Portuguese lawyer just before she went in not to answer these questions, and she found it a struggle not to, because she says in her own words, we are all naturally inclined to reply when asked a question.

Now fair enough, that's just her own take on this, just like the PJ or Goncalo Amaral have fed us their own take on it.

sunflower27 · 03-06-2011 11:52PM

Prinz, save your breath. The glaring inconsistencies are as plain as day, but at this point Team McCann are never going to see what the rest of us do. And why would they, they have been arguing their case for weeks. No-one that has invested that much effort is going to be swayed by anything anyone says

lugha · 04-06-2011 12:12AM

prinz wrote: »

Yes I have addressed it repeatedly now at this stage.

No you haven’t. I’m sorry but you haven’t. You say things like

prinz wrote: »

Majorly inconsistent.

True. The stories are inconsistent. I don’t dispute that. I ask what is the most plausible scenario (i.e. McCanns involved or not) that would give rise to such inconsistencies. I argue that such inconsistencies are more likely to follow from the McCanns being innocent rather than guilty. You don’t dispute that. You don’t say, this is not the way to analyse evidence. You simply say

prinz wrote: »

Majorly inconsistent.

So no, you have not addressed it. When you make an argument that mixed up and conflicting accounts is more typical of what you would expect from a guilty party than an innocent one, then you will have addressed my point. But you haven’t done that. And I don’t think you can.

prinz wrote: »

Do you turn around and take their word

As an aside. I do not take the McCann’s or their friends word on anything. My views on this sorry saga are based in no way on what any of them have said about anything.

maebee · 04-06-2011 12:15AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Nonsensical ?
Ok, Kate and Gerry only deleted them intentionally to make space then, or they might not even had had to actually even think about it.

My phone is a Nokia whatever whatever (oldish), and when the message box is full, it just comes up with a message and I just have to press enter to delete everything. I often do that automatically, don't even think about it, just to have an empty box.
As to the calls log, it simply renews itself without my knowing. I'm too lazy to go and check, but I don't think my phone can log more than 10 calls. It never asks me to delete, so I take it that on the 11th call it automatically deletes the first call, and so on...

So really, realistically, if the Tapas had more than 10 calls each that night (easy, considering the situation), their phones may have lost the logs withtout them having to delete anything. Assuming their phones were more modern than mine (in 2007), they might have stored 20 numbers ? 30 maybe ? Do you think, by the time the Portuguese police were asking to check their logs, they might have reached their 30 calls quota ?
How about texts, could their inboxes have been full (several times) by the time the PJ wanted to check ?

With respect, this is nonsense. Your child has just been abducted and instead of searching for her, you delete messages on your phone to make room for incoming messages?

It's easy to lose track of reality when you're looking for suspicious bits.

No need to LOOK for suspicious bits. The behaviour of the McCanns was/is highly suspicious.

My own opinion on this whole tragic situation is that the PJ really did not do their job properly, and that the whole reporting of the affair being either sourced from the PJ, or the media via the PJ, has been very much distorted and biased

.

The PJ certainly made mistakes, as admitted by Amaral. It is the British media who have been biased and have distorted the story in favour of the McCanns.

We know very little of what actually happened, what questions were actually asked, what was actually done at what time.
When we look at the 40 questions Kate refused to answer for example, we don't know what was said to her off record before the interview.

It was 48 questions she refused to answer. She answered only one, i.e:

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

She does say in her book that she was advised by their Portuguese lawyer just before she went in not to answer these questions, and she found it a struggle not to, because she says in her own words, we are all naturally inclined to reply when asked a question.

Her husband was also advised not to answer the questions but he chose to do so.

Now fair enough, that's just her own take on this, just like the PJ or Goncalo Amaral have fed us their own take on it.

Not just the PJ. British police agreed with them.

123balltv · 04-06-2011 12:16AM

I am having a few glasses of wine with a nice dinner know

NEVER, EVER would I leave my babies alone seriously they should of had dinner and a few drinks in the apartment their friends can go and **** they should have stayed with their flesh and blood.
I wait for a babysitter sometimes just once a month you know why cause
I want to protect my babies even if some sick **** came into my house/apartment I would fight till the death .... Jerry and Kate should have been there.
It's 90 % their own fault :mad: :mad:

Mountainsandh · 04-06-2011 12:16AM

"Prinz, save your breath. The glaring inconsistencies are as plain as day, but at this point Team McCann are never going to see what the rest of us do. And why would they, they have been arguing their case for weeks. No-one that has invested that much effort is going to be swayed by anything anyone says"

Sunflower27, I do agree that some things might look odd, or suspicious even.

In my case, it's not that I can't see how you on the basis of internet searches can put together an expose of inconsistencies, giving an overall impression of ehmm... ehmm "guiltiness"

(excuse my English, I'm French, and after a can of beer, language skills slacken).

But from where I stand (sit actually

), because I do not trust the reports from the media, from Goncalo Amaral (just like you wouldn't trust Kate's book), and, I am sad to say, even from the PJ, then this plethora of inconsistencies is not really one, or not really incriminating.

What I mean is : one report might be pure fabrication, one report might be based on real events, distorted by the media for dramatic effect, one report might be genuine, but some elements were lost/changed in translation (remember I am French, I know how unreliable translations can be), one report might have involved dishonesty on the part of a witness, one report might have involved dishonesty, or misinformation on the part of the PJ. A witness statement might be recorded 100% accurately, translated 100% accurately (unlikely), but we have no clue as to the witness' personality, history, rapport with the McCanns.

So we have a bundle of things, from the media/the internet, but no guarantee that any of them are 100% accurate.

So just as you don't trust the McCann's word, I don't trust the other reports against the McCanns. Some bits and pieces are probably accurate, but we're not in a position to decide what.

sunflower27 · 04-06-2011 12:19AM

goat2 wrote: »

how can they keep up a pretence, all that time they have been working hard to be reunited with their daughter, i cannot emagine a person carrying on this long searching, without slipping up, i still find it hard to beleive that they harmed their daughter, i read the extract, and from it i garnish, there appeared a peadophile among them, which meant they should not have taken their children on holiday with this person in their company, last person any parent would want near their children, was he investigated and is their any more revelations on this person. as i do beleive the person who took that child knew the mccannes movements,

Oh come on, faced with a life in prison I think many people accused of serious crimes plead their innocence.

I never said there was some paedophile ring, but I do think those children were drugged and madeleine had an 'accident'. And no post on here is going to ever sway me from that, so I can understand Team McCann supporting them.

Kate and gerry had everything to lose by taking a lie detector test. And true to form, they refused.

They make me sick.

lugha · 04-06-2011 12:20AM

sunflower27 wrote: »

Prinz, save your breath. The glaring inconsistencies are as plain as day, but at this point Team McCann are never going to see what the rest of us do. And why would they, they have been arguing their case for weeks. No-one that has invested that much effort is going to be swayed by anything anyone says

Well, you are free to offer your explanation as to why these inconsistencies are more indicative of the McCanns or their friends being involved than they not being involved.

But I suspect you will be unable to. Nobody so far has.

TheZohanS · 04-06-2011 12:23AM

goat2 wrote: »

how can they keep up a pretence, all that time they have been working hard to be reunited with their daughter, i cannot emagine a person carrying on this long searching, without slipping up, i still find it hard to beleive that they harmed their daughter, i read the extract, and from it i garnish, there appeared a peadophile among them, which meant they should not have taken their children on holiday with this person in their company, last person any parent would want near their children, was he investigated and is their any more revelations on this person. as i do beleive the person who took that child knew the mccannes movements,

& then...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmk0myNJZRA

The McCanns are smart and their slush fund is paying for the best of the best when it comes to PR, Spin Doctors and Legal Teams. Everything they say is rehearsed.

sunflower27 · 04-06-2011 12:26AM

lugha wrote: »

Well, you are free to offer your explanation as to why these inconsistencies are more indicative of the McCanns or their friends being involved than they not being involved.

But I suspect you will be unable to. Nobody so far has.

And here we go again

lugha · 04-06-2011 12:26AM

123balltv wrote: »

NEVER, EVER would I leave my babies alone

Well, this goes back to the parenting skills, or lack thereof. of the parents, which of course has nothing to do with their direct involvement or not.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "babies". Madeleine, at almost 4, was not a baby. Presumably, you do not mean that you would be physically present from the time your children are born until the cease to be children at 18?

So what would you deem to be adequate supervision of children. And until what age?

sunflower27 · 04-06-2011 12:27AM

Unforgivable parents... absolutely disgusting.

dark crystal · 04-06-2011 12:28AM

sunflower27 wrote: »

Prinz, save your breath. The glaring inconsistencies are as plain as day, but at this point Team McCann are never going to see what the rest of us do. And why would they, they have been arguing their case for weeks. No-one that has invested that much effort is going to be swayed by anything anyone says

Team McCann is it? This isn't just some internet game of Cleudo, it involves real people who have lost a child.

These people are INNOCENT until proven otherwise. That is the law - nothing to do with people on one side of the debate trying to get one over on people on the other side of the debate.

If all this 'evidence' you are presenting is so damning, tell me why the McCanns are not facing charges right now.

Many of the quotes given on this thread are either from an anti-McCann websites, or from Amaral's book, both of which are biased against the McCanns themselves. Excuse me if I take some of these quotes with a pinch of salt. I doubt we have invested any more effort into our arguments, than those who suspect the McCanns of wrongdoing have invested in theirs.
There are frankly ridiculous theories being bandied about, concerning the McCanns and their friends being swingers, paedophiles and accessories to a serious crime, simply because they don't act the way certain people think they should act or say what certain people think they should say.

If you think that makes me in any way oblivious to the truth as you see it, I will respectfully agree to disagree. I won't be swayed until I hear or see tangible and concrete evidence that the McCanns and their friends have committed a crime.

Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Comments