Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

maebee · 04-06-2011 01:35AM

lugha wrote: »

I had the impression from your posts so far that you believed that the McCanns or their friends were directly responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, and that the abduction explanation was a non-runner?

Have you changed your mind?

I believe that the McCanns and their friends are directly responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine. I do not believe that Madeleine was abducted. I have followed the case closely for the past four years, spent weeks reading the official police files, watched the McCanns in their interviews and have noted their numerous lies. I remember exactly where I was when I heard about this missing child and I was gripped by the story. When our youngest was about two and a half, he extraced himself from his buggy in the Bull Ring in Birmingham. He was missing for 10/15 minutes. He was found safe and well but I nearly lost my mind. This happened on our first day in Birmingham and I was so shaken from the experience that I never left the house we were staying in for the rest of that week. When I saw the McCanns out jogging and blogging days after Madeleine was supposedly in the hands of paedophiles, I became suspicious.

I do not believe them. They are hiding something. After careful study of the case of missing Madeleine, I have grave suspicions about Gerry McCann and David Payne.

lugha · 04-06-2011 01:40AM

Meteoric wrote: »

Are you actually being serious? Really? Equating a 16 year old with a 4 year old?

I'm not, but nevermind.
What about a 10-11 year old such as the Soham girls? Were their parents irresponsible?

My essential point here is that it is not reasonable to expect parents to guard specifically against predators. The risk is so small as to not really be worth the effort. It would be like fitting them with lightening conductors in case they were struck by a bolt.

You can say the McCanns failed in providing basic supervision for their children, which of course would make even smaller, the negligible risk of being abducted. But I don't see how you can say the failed their child in this regard, if you do not hold all parents to the same standards.

dark crystal · 04-06-2011 01:44AM

Meteoric wrote: »

To me logically since Madeline was seen alive at half five if they were as a group or both parents trying to hide a body it would make more sense to wait until morning to report her missing, as they would have more time to cover tracks, unless one parent was hiding things from the other. But like everyone else I just don't know but I do find the circumstantial evidence hard to ignore.

You see, this is exactly where the whole guilty theory falls down for me.

Logically, any parent who has killed their child (accidentally or otherwise), would not then be able to hide the body, go to dinner and act perfectly normally, then pretend to discover the girl missing, after somehow having the forethought to carry on letting others check on the apartment throughout the evening then and call the police in the space of time available. You would have to be both inhuman (without any feelings for your child whatsoever) and incredibly lucky to do so and get away with it.

The other theory, that the friends were all involved - how does this work exactly? How were they involved in Madeleine's death? If they knew the McCanns were guilty of killing their daughter, why on earth would they agree to cover for them and become accessories to murder? In four years, not one of them has had a pang of guilt and come clean? In four years, not one of them has had anything to gain by covering up for the McCanns - so why do it?

In my mind, none of these theories makes any sense, therefore, I'm much more inclined to believe Madeleine was abducted, plain and simple.

maebee · 04-06-2011 01:45AM

lugha wrote: »

I'm not, but nevermind.

You can say the McCanns failed in providing basic supervision for their children, which of course would make even smaller, the negligible risk of being abducted. But I don't see how you can say the failed their child in this regard, if you do not hold all parents to the same standards.

The Doctors McCann failed their child. They failed to protect her. End of. Cop yourself on.

lugha · 04-06-2011 01:48AM

maebee wrote: »

I believe that the McCanns and their friends are directly responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.

Fine. But I don't see how you can square that with your view that "the McCanns child "disappeared" because they did not take care of her." But that's only a small point.

maebee wrote: »

I do not believe them. They are hiding something.

I don't think that us an unreasonable view. The question is, are they hiding something in relation to Madeleine's disappearance, or something which is completely unrelated?

There is some evidence of the former, but for me, not enough to accuse a parent of being involved in the death of their child.

lugha · 04-06-2011 01:51AM

maebee wrote: »

The Doctors McCann failed their child. They failed to protect her. End of. Cop yourself on.

:rolleyes: Maybe you should read what I posted again.

maebee · 04-06-2011 01:51AM

In my mind, none of these theories makes any sense, therefore, I'm much more inclined to believe Madeleine was abducted, plain and simple.

It's far from plain and simple. There is absolutely NO evidence that Madeleine was abducted. Her parents cried "abduction" from minute one and they refused to consider any other scenario. This "Abductor" has never struck again since May 2007? You need to open your mind to the other possible scenarios.

maebee · 04-06-2011 01:54AM

lugha wrote: »

The question is, are they hiding something in relation to Madeleine's disappearance?

Study the Gaspars' Staements.

Mountainsandh · 04-06-2011 01:57AM

Maebee that's disingenuous, for all you know the abductor may have struck again in Venezuala or Thailand.

Or he may just have copped on that it wouldn't be safe for him to do so anymore, you know, if he'd had half a brain.

Meteoric · 04-06-2011 01:59AM

lugha wrote: »

I'm not, but nevermind.
What about a 10-11 year old such as the Soham girls? Were their parents irresponsible?

My essential point here is that it is not reasonable to expect parents to guard specifically against predators. The risk is so small as to not really be worth the effort. It would be like fitting them with lightening conductors in case they were struck by a bolt.

You can say the McCanns failed in providing basic supervision for their children, which of course would make even smaller, the negligible risk of being abducted. But I don't see how you can say the failed their child in this regard, if you do not hold all parents to the same standards.

You miss my point, parents should not be there to guard their children against predators (quite rare), they should be there to guard them from harm (happens all the time), children fall into pools wander onto the street, etc.
The only people who are convinced there was a predator are the McCanns who completely failed in their duty to protect their young child from hurting herself accidentally.

PapaQuebec · 04-06-2011 02:03AM

goat2 wrote: »

i dont beleive anything that is written by this author,

The statement wasn't written by "this author"
The statement was written by a long-time friend, associate, and holiday partner of the McCanns.
It wasn't made to Amaral, It was made to UK police officers, and I'd imagine given under oath!!

dark crystal · 04-06-2011 02:07AM

maebee wrote: »

It's far from plain and simple. There is absolutely NO evidence that Madeleine was abducted. Her parents cried "abduction" from minute one and they refused to consider any other scenario. This "Abductor" has never struck again since May 2007? You need to open your mind to the other possible scenarios.

Did the parents of Sara Payne, Polly Klaas or Holly and Jessica cry abduction too? Were they guilty?
What evidence of abduction are you looking for in a crime scene that has been tainted exactly?
What other scenarios did you expect them to have?

Also, of course there are other cases of abducted children in Portugal.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37797

In Portugal, SOS Criança Desaparecida (SOS Missing Children) of the Instituto de Apoio à Crianza opened 31 new cases last year of missing children, involving 19 girls and 12 boys.

If an open mind involves accusing people of being swingers, paedophiles and sociopathic criminal masterminds, then consider me close minded by all means.
I can't find one piece of evidence to prove any of those being accused are any of these things. Nor can any police force who have investigated them so far.

lugha · 04-06-2011 02:08AM

Meteoric wrote: »

You miss my point, parents should not be there to guard their children against predators (quite rare), they should be there to guard them from harm (happens all the time), children fall into pools wander onto the street, etc.

Exactly! That is precisely the view that I take.

Meteoric wrote: »

The only people who are convinced there was a predator are the McCanns who completely failed in their duty to protect their young child from hurting herself accidentally.

In a sense, there are only two possibly explanations. Either the McCanns and their friends were somehow involved, or there was some unknown third party, i.e. a predator. If it was the latter, then the McCanns, uniquely, know that this must be the case.

To argue that the McCanns won't consider any other possibility is silly. If they insist that they are not involved, which they do, rightly or not, then a predator is the only reasonable alternative? What other plausible explanations are there?

Mountainsandh · 04-06-2011 02:10AM

maebee wrote: »

Study the Gaspars' Staements.

Which could be a mis-interpretation of the situation on the part of the lady doctor.

Which doesn't state what Gerry's reaction was, exactly. It certainly doesn't state he was complicit.

Which doesn't state really what others' reactions were. It says : "there was a nervous silence in the conversation, then everyone started talking again". That's just this person's perception of the situation, not a fact. All the other adults presents might not have registered the gesture and alleged significance, it might have been only this lady interpreting it that way. Her husband supporting her does not sound very convincing either. Had she not brought up the issue, he might not have thought twice about it.

The Gaspar statement does not show that Gerry was condoning or even registering the potential "evilness" in DPayne's gesture in any way.
If David Payne was guilty, then it would be without the McCanns knowledge.

Not saying that's not possible. If the lady was right in thinking it was suggestive, then DP would definitely be a number one suspect imo.

A lot of making judgements in her statements : she thought it was suggestive. She thought there was a silence in conversation then it started again. When DP made the gesture again, she's not able to say if it was in England or on holidays.

Here is the actual statement by the way, please scroll down to the official statement.

And actually a bit below you will find that what we are reading (as I was saying earlier) was probably in fact translated from the Portuguese files rather than the original statement given to the British police. I don't think the British police have released their evidence for the public. The Portuguese police files are shown with a scrolly thing on the side.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id236.html

lugha · 04-06-2011 02:13AM

dark crystal wrote: »

I can't find one piece of evidence to prove any of those being accused are any of these things. Nor can any police force who have investigated them so far.

In fairness, the "dog" evidence is quite strong, if not in itself conclusive. But very little else.

Meteoric · 04-06-2011 02:18AM

dark crystal wrote: »

You see, this is exactly where the whole guilty theory falls down for me.

Logically, any parent who has killed their child (accidentally or otherwise), would not then be able to hide the body, go to dinner and act perfectly normally, then pretend to discover the girl missing, after somehow having the forethought to carry on letting others check on the apartment throughout the evening then and call the police in the space of time available. You would have to be both inhuman (without any feelings for your child whatsoever) and incredibly lucky to do so and get away with it.

To me you would not be able to act the way they did without knowing where the child was. I guess it's just me but when my dog went missing I was in bits not knowing what was happening to him because I did not know where he was, what he was suffering. I got sent home from work I was so upset. Had I known he was dead I'd have been able to work, horribly upset but not wondering every second and that was a dog, no-where near as important as a child. But I don't have that stiff English upper lip
I've just seen how what I posted as reasonable comment has been selectively taken to mean something I didn't mean to say.

dark crystal · 04-06-2011 02:35AM

Meteoric wrote: »

To me you would not be able to act the way they did without knowing where the child was. I guess it's just me but when my dog went missing I was in bits not knowing what was happening to him because I did not know where he was, what he was suffering. I got sent home from work I was so upset. Had I known he was dead I'd have been able to work, horribly upset but not wondering every second and that was a dog, no-where near as important as a child. But I don't have that stiff English upper lip
I've just seen how what I posted as reasonable comment has been selectively taken to mean something I didn't mean to say.

Sorry, are you saying that I misrepresented your post....I'm not sure? That certainly wasn't my intention.

I was only quoting your post as an indication as to why I believe the McCanns could not have harmed Madeleine, in terms of normal human behaviour. I'm not sure of your views either way.

_feedback_ · 04-06-2011 10:04AM

lugha wrote: »

Such as?

When I posted that, I was referring to how ridiculous your theory on deleting phone records was, and most of the points you listed on how the "oddities" could be
passed off as innocent. But since then, in particular, the post suggesting the children shouldn't be referred to as babies, and suggesting that they may have been at an ok age to be alone, exceeds ridiculous.

Their known behaviour is disgusting.. I'm not going to bother engaging with someone who tries to justify it...

iamwhoiam · 04-06-2011 10:31AM

As far as I remember the phone deletion seemed odd because it wasnt a full clear ,as in " delete all messages " it was a partial clear .So would have to be done manually ., Some message were left on and some before and after them were gone .

As for calling them "babies " it a figure of speech and occasionally I still refer to my 21 year old as my baby ,. ( She is not always impressed ! )

I alos think that discription in the Gaspars statement of Paynes finger and how he traced his nipple with it is hardly an innocent gesture .I know no other person who would think this is simply a very innocent mocking of a child sucking her finger .

I wll not be boxed into any team or camp .I am openminded and will listen to all evidence , but my gut feeling here screams that something is simply not sitting right in this sad story .,

lugha · 04-06-2011 11:10AM

elviscostello wrote: »

When I posted that, I was referring to how ridiculous your theory on deleting phone records was, and most of the points you listed on how the "oddities" could be passed off as innocent.

And yet you won’t address them specifically? i.e. Take one such aspect and offer a rational as to why it is more consistent with them being guilty than innocent. Surely phone records can be recovered by the phone companies, or at least the friends would likely have assumed as much? If there was something that seriously incriminated them in those records, deleting them would not cover it up. Can you outline any scenario where a call (as opposed to a text) logged between any two of the friends could amount to evidence of a conspiracy in Madeleine’s disappearance? I have to admit I cannot. Again, what you have is strange behaviour and you are making the jump to taking this as evidence against them.

elviscostello wrote: »

But since then, in particular, the post suggesting the children shouldn't be referred to as babies, and suggesting that they may have been at an ok age to be alone, exceeds ridiculous.

I have said on several occasions that they should not have been left alone, so I don’t know where you are getting this from.

lugha · 04-06-2011 11:19AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I alos think that discription in the Gaspars statement of Paynes finger and how he traced his nipple with it is hardly an innocent gesture .I know no other person who would think this is simply a very innocent mocking of a child sucking her finger .

It certainly is worth looking at but even at face value I think there are a number of obvious questions. The most obvious of which is, would two paedophiles really behave like that in front of other people?
Also, I wonder if it is not a variation on a trick we used to try when we were kids whereby you patted your head up and down with one hand and moved your other hand in a circular pattern on your stomach? Quite difficult to do :pac:
Perhaps not, but the statement is not detailed enough to say one way or the other.

AudreyHepburn · 04-06-2011 11:42AM

First can we please leave the argument as to whether the McCanns leaving their babies alone was wrong to rest. Of course they, there's no question about that and it is getting tedious reading the same things over and over again.

Two the thing about David and Gerry being paedophiles. There is no evidence bar one statement to suggest anything like that and Gaspar could easily have misinterpretted what she saw. You would have thought if it were that suspicious some-one else would have mentioned it.

Three I asked this before but it was never answered. The main factor that lead me to believe Kate and Gerry are innocent is simply the amount of time and effort they have put into finding Madeleine. Four years of searching. You would have to be the most evil, physcopathic people on earth to be able to do what they've been doing all these years if you had killed your daughter. Do they really truely honestly strike people as that? Honest answers please.

maebee · 04-06-2011 11:43AM

lugha wrote: »

Also, I wonder if it is not a variation on a trick we used to try when we were kids whereby you patted your head up and down with one hand and moved your other hand in a circular pattern on your stomach?

Dr. Katrina Gaspar didn't think so. It alarmed her so much that she felt the need to report it to the police. He didn't pat his head and rub his stomach. He put his finger in and out of his mouth and did the circular motion on his nipple. Very disturbing.

Mountainsandh · 04-06-2011 11:46AM

I don't know, re-Gaspar statement... Really it does sound very gross to me, and really shocking.

But on the other hand, these people are parents, and the 2 fathers David and Gerry could have genuinely just been talking about how their little Madams were well able to run circles around them, and so it could have come up that he said : "it works every time, she just looks at me and goes ** gesture** and I simply have to buy her that newest Barbie".

The gesture could indeed have been dramatised or mis-interpreted by the lady witness. As I said before, he could have been signing like someone twirling long hair, and so his demonstration could have been around the nipple area, with the lady simply being a bit drunk and totally getting it wrong. Maybe it's the lady with the dirty awful mind for all we know.

Mountainsandh · 04-06-2011 11:49AM

maebee wrote: »

Dr. Katrina Gaspar didn't think so. It alarmed her so much that she felt the need to report it to the police. He didn't pat his head and rub his stomach. He put his finger in and out of his mouth and did the circular motion on his nipple. Very disturbing.

She only reported it to the police after Madeleine McCann was presumably abducted.

She didn't think it worth reporting to the police before the child's disappearance.

maebee · 04-06-2011 11:54AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

She only reported it to the police after Madeleine McCann was presumably abducted.

She didn't think it worth reporting to the police before the child's disappearance.

Indeed. It must have become all the more significant to her after Madeleine's disappearance.

Richard Dower · 04-06-2011 11:58AM

If the child did die by accident, how or where did they get rid of the body?

Matthew23 · 04-06-2011 12:00PM

I think something alot of people are missing in this debate is that why would the parents want to kill there kid? What would they have to be gained from that? Dont think they killed her.

Silver Moon · 04-06-2011 12:02PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The main factor that lead me to believe Kate and Gerry are innocent is simply the amount of time and effort they have put into finding Madeleine. Four years of searching.

surely you mean four years of asking other people to search, asking other people to give you money, moaning about the Portugese police, moaning about the Portugese public, monaing about the media coverage, moaning about other people who didn't implicity believe 100% of what you say, and of course spening a huge amount of time and money threatening people with legal action if the do not toe the party line?

The McCanns have done zero searching - they are only interested in protecting their own backs. They are still getting Carter Ruck (at great expense) to send out 'cease and desist' demands to various websites. Team McCann are very frightened of the truth getting out, that much is clear.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/mccann-exposure-is-carter-rucked/

Richard Dower · 04-06-2011 12:03PM

Matthew23 wrote: »

I think something alot of people are missing in this debate is that why would the parents want to kill there kid? What would they have to be gained from that? Dont think they killed her.

The theory is she died by accident, they panicked...disposed of the body etc.
Or perhaps Maddie was being difficult or something and Kate by accident killed her, the hubby covered it up.

Pure speculation, it reminds me of that UK nanny thing, in that case i honestly belive the child died by accident....it wasn't deliberate.

Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Comments