View Full Version : Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 25
colomom
08-20-2008, 12:14 PM
Please continue the discussion here...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/injustice.jpg
Previous thread here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68466
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-20-2008, 03:54 PM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2517982&postcount=406
Correio da Manha (http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.a...0-000000000010 (http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.aspx?contentid=EEBE6E95-D09B-4593-B45C-398FE9065F67&channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010))
Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com...ad=1355&page=9 (http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1355&page=9) #124
19 Agosto 2008 - 00h30
PJ admitted that the children had been drugged
Kate's strange attitudes
A strange attitude by Kate, on the day of Madeleine's disappearance was pointed out by Fiona Payne, one of the members of the British group on holiday in P da L.
FP's witness statement says that Maddie's mother, during the first hours marked by despair and by a feeling close to frustration, several times approached the twins, holding her fingers close to their noses.
Sean and Amélie were asleep at this time, but Kate seemed to want to confirm that that her youngest children were alive, checking if they were breathing.
This is very weird. I could TOTALLY understand Kate's concern that the "abductor" might have drugged her twins...Matter of fact, I would even praise her if she would have rushed them to a local hospital to run lab tests to make sure nothing harmful had been injected in them. Isn't it odd that she would check to see if they were still breathing, but not immediately think the abductor might have poisoned them...you know, to keep them quiet or something. How come she was so sure the "abductor" did nothing to harm her other children.:waitasec:
Not only did she leave her twins alone in the apartment after the "abductor" took one of her children, she didn't have a medical tox screening done to make sure the "abductor" didn't harm them either. She must have been pretty close friends with the "abductor" to trust them so completely. The twins were so knocked out that she felt it nessary to check for their respiration (several times), they never woke in the all the major chaos, but they didn't think once to have them tested for a potentially deadly injectable poison?
Refugee
08-20-2008, 04:58 PM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2517982&postcount=406
Correio da Manha (http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.a...0-000000000010 (http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.aspx?contentid=EEBE6E95-D09B-4593-B45C-398FE9065F67&channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010))
Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com...ad=1355&page=9 (http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1355&page=9) #124
19 Agosto 2008 - 00h30
This is very weird. I could TOTALLY understand Kate's concern that the "abductor" might have drugged her twins...Matter of fact, I would even praise her if she would have rushed them to a local hospital to run lab tests to make sure nothing harmful had been injected in them. Isn't it odd that she would check to see if they were still breathing, but not immediately think the abductor might have poisoned them...you know, to keep them quiet or something. How come she was so sure the "abductor" did nothing to harm her other children.:waitasec:
Not only did she leave her twins alone in the apartment after the "abductor" took one of her children, she didn't have a medical tox screening done to make sure the "abductor" didn't harm them either. She must have been pretty close friends with the "abductor" to trust them so completely. The twins were so knocked out that she felt it nessary to check for their respiration (several times), they never woke in the all the major chaos, but they didn't think once to have them tested for a potentially deadly injectable poison?
..or to worry in case they had been injected using a dirty needle.
But I think we all know why that was dont we! Gerry mused (we saw it on video) about the twins possibly having been sedated - but didnt get them checked! How anyone can trust the McCanns I have no idea, its so obvious that they cannot be trusted. Seems more than likely that Madeleine died as a result of sedation, all the doctors in on the method, hence all sticking together so solidly.
But did she wake and have an acciodet or did the sedation make her ill (hence O'Brien and the 'sick child' story - and the clothes change and sheet change stories!)
Salem
08-20-2008, 05:12 PM
Or to wake them up!!! Isn't that the first thing you would do? Wake them up and ask where is Maddie? I think I would do this, even before I screamed for help from others. At that moment when it began to dawn on me that she was not in the apartment, I would be shaking the other 2 awake and asking where is Maddie? And then I would definitely be taking them both with me if I left the room.
I don't understand how she could have left them behind. In a panic you don't always do what you think you would do, however in a panic from a missing child would make you want to be doubly sure the other children were there. You would pick them up!
Salem
Barnaby
08-20-2008, 06:05 PM
Or to wake them up!!! Isn't that the first thing you would do? Wake them up and ask where is Maddie? I think I would do this, even before I screamed for help from others. At that moment when it began to dawn on me that she was not in the apartment, I would be shaking the other 2 awake and asking where is Maddie? And then I would definitely be taking them both with me if I left the room.
I don't understand how she could have left them behind. In a panic you don't always do what you think you would do, however in a panic from a missing child would make you want to be doubly sure the other children were there. You would pick them up!
Salem
Absolutely agree Salem, you would of course waken the other children in an attempt to find out what happened & you certainly would not leave them alone if you thought that one child had been abducted!
If Madeleine did die from sedation or the repercussions thereof such as an accident, it takes two EXTREMELY callous parents to just dump her little body! Regardless of any personal consequences, I doubt that many parents could be so cruel!
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-20-2008, 06:19 PM
Or to wake them up!!! Isn't that the first thing you would do? Wake them up and ask where is Maddie? I think I would do this, even before I screamed for help from others. At that moment when it began to dawn on me that she was not in the apartment, I would be shaking the other 2 awake and asking where is Maddie? And then I would definitely be taking them both with me if I left the room.
I don't understand how she could have left them behind. In a panic you don't always do what you think you would do, however in a panic from a missing child would make you want to be doubly sure the other children were there. You would pick them up!
Salem
Exactly! Not a pass of the fingers under their noses to make sure they are breathing...Good grief. I think it's safe to say that the majority of us would be screaming...What happened to your big sister...???:furious:
colomom
08-20-2008, 06:38 PM
Absolutely agree Salem, you would of course waken the other children in an attempt to find out what happened & you certainly would not leave them alone if you thought that one child had been abducted!
If Madeleine did die from sedation or the repercussions thereof such as an accident, it takes two EXTREMELY callous parents to just dump her little body! Regardless of any personal consequences, I doubt that many parents could be so cruel!
Doesn't the fact that rather than wake the twins, she checked their breathing, show how callous she is?
Doesn't ignoring Maddie's plea to not be left alone show how callous she is?
Doesn't leaving all 3 of them alone, knowing full well the myriad of accidents they might have, show how callous she is?
Doesn't leaving the twins in the creche day after day (do you suppose they were scared to be left?) after Maddie's vanishing show how callous she is?
I could probably come up with some more (feel free) but I think I have made my point.
She is callous with a capital C and Gerry, who stood by and did nothing, guilty by association, with a capital G!!
Texana
08-20-2008, 07:32 PM
Wasn't there a leaked photo from those recently revealed photos? Didn't we have a link somewhere to it? I can't find it now!
I've never understood why the twins weren't wakened. At that age, immediately after the fact, they could have told something.
Kate left the twins to run back to the restaurant.
She didn't try to awaken the children to ask where Maddie was, to see if they knew anything, even toddler talk.
As Tony Bennet has pointed out, there seems to be some line of thinking that the twins weren't there at all at first, but were brought from someone else's room, based on I believe, Charlotte Pennington's account.
SleuthMom
08-20-2008, 07:46 PM
If Madeleine did die from sedation or the repercussions thereof such as an accident, it takes two EXTREMELY callous parents to just dump her little body! Regardless of any personal consequences, I doubt that many parents could be so cruel!
You're so right Barnaby! I am a mother of three and if something like this happens to me, I would be so depressed and angry with myself that I WILL WILLING GO TO PRISON FOR IT! :(
I was thinking guys, since we know Maddie was crying on May 1st and probably "ruined" her parent's dinner with her crying, I wonder if they decided to INCREASE THE DOSE of whatever they were giving her to make sure she sleeps throughout the night and the dose ended up being fatal?
SleuthMom
08-20-2008, 07:49 PM
Wasn't there a leaked photo from those recently revealed photos? Didn't we have a link somewhere to it? I can't find it now!
I've never understood why the twins weren't wakened. At that age, immediately after the fact, they could have told something.
Kate left the twins to run back to the restaurant.
She didn't try to awaken the children to ask where Maddie was, to see if they knew anything, even toddler talk.
As Tony Bennet has pointed out, there seems to be some line of thinking that the twins weren't there at all at first, but were brought from someone else's room, based on I believe, Charlotte Pennington's account.
Texana, I remember well a report last year that stated that ALL the children of the Mc Canns and the other doctors were kept in ONE APARTMENT, sometimes it was the Mc Cann's apartment and they would rotate. This would make MORE sense, since ONE person could go and check ALL the kids at once.
Morag
08-20-2008, 08:17 PM
Texana, I remember well a report last year that stated that ALL the children of the Mc Canns and the other doctors were kept in ONE APARTMENT, sometimes it was the Mc Cann's apartment and they would rotate. This would make MORE sense, since ONE person could go and check ALL the kids at once.
"McCann children 'were not alone in apartment'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2621809.ece
(I'm not Texana, but I am a Texan.)
SleuthMom
08-20-2008, 08:48 PM
Good job Morag! Thanks.
Barnaby
08-20-2008, 10:34 PM
Doesn't the fact that rather than wake the twins, she checked their breathing, show how callous she is?
Doesn't ignoring Maddie's plea to not be left alone show how callous she is?
Doesn't leaving all 3 of them alone, knowing full well the myriad of accidents they might have, show how callous she is?
Doesn't leaving the twins in the creche day after day (do you suppose they were scared to be left?) after Maddie's vanishing show how callous she is?
I could probably come up with some more (feel free) but I think I have made my point.
She is callous with a capital C and Gerry, who stood by and did nothing, guilty by association, with a capital G!!
Oh colomon I could quote so many more instances of their callousness, I won't bore anyone by citing what has been said before but one that stands out for me is Kate saying that she could sleep so well after the first few nights, I am afraid I would never sleep again if I thought that my child was with paedophiles!
Sadly most people here like myself will have experienced loss, worry & trauma in life & all too well know that nighttime can be the very worst when one is alone with their thoughts in the dark & this callous cow with a missing baby sleeps like a log?? DUH!!
You're so right Barnaby! I am a mother of three and if something like this happens to me, I would be so depressed and angry with myself that I WILL WILLING GO TO PRISON FOR IT! :(
I was thinking guys, since we know Maddie was crying on May 1st and probably "ruined" her parent's dinner with her crying, I wonder if they decided to INCREASE THE DOSE of whatever they were giving her to make sure she sleeps throughout the night and the dose ended up being fatal?
Too right Sleuthmom, most parents would at least have the decency to put their hands up if only to give their child an appropriate burial!
I don't think that death was totally due to sedation (dying in her sleep) as I do trust the findings of the dogs & there was blood detected, so either a drug induced accident or a more violent attack!
Salem
08-20-2008, 11:33 PM
"McCann children 'were not alone in apartment'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2621809.ece
(I'm not Texana, but I am a Texan.)
Thanks for this article link, Morag. Not to change the subject, but it was just a few days ago that everyone was talking about the email from the FSS. Here is a snip from this article:
"A source at the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, which carried out the tests on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, is reported to have said that the results showed police were right to make the couple arguidos, or official suspects."
So there was someone at the FSS that thought the forensics would be positive.
Salem
Texana
08-21-2008, 12:45 AM
Thanks for this article link, Morag. Not to change the subject, but it was just a few days ago that everyone was talking about the email from the FSS. Here is a snip from this article:
"A source at the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, which carried out the tests on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, is reported to have said that the results showed police were right to make the couple arguidos, or official suspects."
So there was someone at the FSS that thought the forensics would be positive.
Salem
Thanks, Salem, this is what I've thought all along--that not everyone at the lab agreed--
Refugee
08-21-2008, 03:54 AM
The thoughts regarding the twins are very valid, I beleive.
The odd behaviour of not checking with your friend, supposedly in a nearby apartment, to see if perhaps she had heard Maddie crying (in view of the previous mornings crying story and McCann puzzlement) and come to get her has been defneded by saying she was in a panic (a GP in a panic, tut tut?). But if she was in a panic, how come she doesnt awaken the twins as was suggested above, in a panic, to see if they knew anything. Was it, perhaps, becase they had locked the doors and Madeleine couldnt have been taken by the friend? Or did the friend 'phone the Tapas to tell them they had heard crying from the apartment and when Kate came to check she was confronted with a terrible scene, which included Maddie being there? Although we have been told that - depite earlier stories - Gerry used a key to get in and came in the front door, we have not been told how Kate got in. Did she also have to use a key and is this why the other doctors checks didnt involve entering the apartment?
If we assume that all the doors were in fact locked, doesnt that remove any chance at all of Madeleine having been abducted - unless of course, someone had a key? Why is this possibility never discussed?
Texana
08-21-2008, 07:41 AM
The thoughts regarding the twins are very valid, I beleive.
Or did the friend 'phone the Tapas to tell them they had heard crying from the apartment and when Kate came to check she was confronted with a terrible scene, which included Maddie being there? Although we have been told that - depite earlier stories - Gerry used a key to get in and came in the front door, we have not been told how Kate got in. Did she also have to use a key and is this why the other doctors checks didnt involve entering the apartment?
If we assume that all the doors were in fact locked, doesnt that remove any chance at all of Madeleine having been abducted - unless of course, someone had a key? Why is this possibility never discussed?
The whole door/key thing is another key (sorry, bad pun) point--the McCanns' story changed about the locked doors. First they were locked, then they said they weren't, then they said they were BUT the patio door must have been unlocked.
Also, that's why the insistence on the window shutters being jimmied open.
Barnaby
08-21-2008, 07:55 AM
Thanks for this article link, Morag. Not to change the subject, but it was just a few days ago that everyone was talking about the email from the FSS. Here is a snip from this article:
"A source at the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, which carried out the tests on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, is reported to have said that the results showed police were right to make the couple arguidos, or official suspects."
So there was someone at the FSS that thought the forensics would be positive.
Salem
Thanks, Salem, this is what I've thought all along--that not everyone at the lab agreed--
I have always thought that there was some one at the FSS who perhaps had reason to tamper with the samples. I cannot understand original findings then a blank. There must have been a very good reason for FSS to say the police were right so what changed presuming that the sample remained the same????
The thoughts regarding the twins are very valid, I beleive.
The odd behaviour of not checking with your friend, supposedly in a nearby apartment, to see if perhaps she had heard Maddie crying (in view of the previous mornings crying story and McCann puzzlement) and come to get her has been defneded by saying she was in a panic (a GP in a panic, tut tut?). But if she was in a panic, how come she doesnt awaken the twins as was suggested above, in a panic, to see if they knew anything. Was it, perhaps, becase they had locked the doors and Madeleine couldnt have been taken by the friend? Or did the friend 'phone the Tapas to tell them they had heard crying from the apartment and when Kate came to check she was confronted with a terrible scene, which included Maddie being there? Although we have been told that - depite earlier stories - Gerry used a key to get in and came in the front door, we have not been told how Kate got in. Did she also have to use a key and is this why the other doctors checks didnt involve entering the apartment?
If we assume that all the doors were in fact locked, doesnt that remove any chance at all of Madeleine having been abducted - unless of course, someone had a key? Why is this possibility never discussed?
There have been many suggestions that the door was actually locked & that is why I think that Kate McCann tried the jemmied shutters lie - only way an abductor could have got in if doors were locked! When that didn't work their only option was to say the doors were unlocked!
Now I don't believe this for one minute, the McCanns don't value their children but I would guess that they are self centered enough to protect their belongings - passports, laptop etc!
ThoughtFox
08-21-2008, 10:08 AM
FP's witness statement says that Maddie's mother, during the first hours marked by despair and by a feeling close to frustration, several times approached the twins, holding her fingers close to their noses.
Sean and Amélie were asleep at this time, but Kate seemed to want to confirm that that her youngest children were alive, checking if they were breathing.
:furious: OK, I've been on Websleuths for a long time, and I read alot of things here that scare me ALOT, but something rare just happened.
I read about Kate's actions with the Twins and the hair at the back of my neck actually rose up! :eek:
So I'm asking myself again, if police in Portugal and England had read that statement from Fiona Payne, why didn't they hold an inquest about whether to bring charges? That is bizarre!
twinkiesmom
08-21-2008, 10:22 AM
Doesn't the fact that rather than wake the twins, she checked their breathing, show how callous she is?
I think checking their breathing was the only loving mother concern she showed her children...goes to state of mind...re: Madeleine's disappearance...regarding her surviving children she was more concerned about the twins suffocating than being abducted. I have always thought Madeleine was overdosed and stopped breathing or choked on her own vomit....Maybe the Tapas member who discovered her convulsing or dying was the one who was gone from the table the longest? Because they are trained to handle medical crises, it could have been handled quietly... Maybe the group pact involves collective guilt over sedating their children and collective fear that their own parental rights are in jeopardy?
Salem
08-21-2008, 10:35 AM
ThoughtFox - I agree with you about the inquest. So does Tony Bennett. He has brought it up several times and he would like to find a way to force England to hold the inquest. I don't know how that could be done but I am amazed that this case has been shelved.
I'm thinking when the time comes to have Maddie declared legally dead, the English Court will have to hold an inquest, because Maddie is now a ward of the court.
Twinkie - as for collective guilt, I agree. How else could you keep all 7 of the other members quiet if they knew something? I refuse to believe (maybe hard core denial) that 9 people know what happened to Maddie and NONE of them will talk. Either not everyone knows or there is a reason why they won't speak the truth. It just boggles my mind. I can see one or two people - but all of them?
Salem
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-21-2008, 11:13 AM
ThoughtFox - I agree with you about the inquest. So does Tony Bennett. He has brought it up several times and he would like to find a way to force England to hold the inquest. I don't know how that could be done but I am amazed that this case has been shelved.
I'm thinking when the time comes to have Maddie declared legally dead, the English Court will have to hold an inquest, because Maddie is now a ward of the court.
Twinkie - as for collective guilt, I agree. How else could you keep all 7 of the other members quiet if they knew something? I refuse to believe (maybe hard core denial) that 9 people know what happened to Maddie and NONE of them will talk. Either not everyone knows or there is a reason why they won't speak the truth. It just boggles my mind. I can see one or two people - but all of them?
Salem
Something very sinister is up with the T9 "pact of silence". I for one, think it is much worse than covering up the fact they all drugged their kids so they could party. Bad, yes, unthinkable, evil, disturbing, yes...but I unfortunately know way to many crappy parents who give their kids Benadryl or NyQuil to make them sleep. If the group wanted to get the kids sleeping, they could have used a legal, non RX drug and it would have fallen into the "baby listening is legal" category. I think if Madeleine's death was an accident, it involved rape. Something SO HORRIBLE that it would ruin every one of the good doctors and their families for life.
Salem
08-21-2008, 11:35 AM
I hear what you are saying IW. But I can't reconcile it with myself. If it was rape by one of the party members - I can't see how the others wouldn't have turned the person in, except for maybe the spouse. I can not see how the other 7 members would not say something, unless they were all a part of it and that is more than my mind can bear. Not impossible, I know, but I just don't see it. So..... what else is there? Drugs not enough to keep everyone silent, rape is too horrible to keep everyone silent.... What falls between these two extremes that could keep 9 people all on the same silent path?
It sounds to me that maybe at least a couple of the 9 don't know - maybe Diane Webster who supposedly reported some odd behavior? and Rachael or Fiona that reported about the breath checking of the twins? That would take us down to 7?
G&K we know why. That gives us 5? What would keep the other 5 silent? Tanner & O'Brien - maybe their part in the cover up. Oldfield - maybe the previous reports of his "ucky" behavior? Payne - I don't know (Do I have Oldfield and Payne mixed up?).
There is something here..........
Salem
twinkiesmom
08-21-2008, 12:04 PM
Something very sinister is up with the T9 "pact of silence". I for one, think it is much worse than covering up the fact they all drugged their kids so they could party. Bad, yes, unthinkable, evil, disturbing, yes...but I unfortunately know way to many crappy parents who give their kids Benadryl or NyQuil to make them sleep. If the group wanted to get the kids sleeping, they could have used a legal, non RX drug and it would have fallen into the "baby listening is legal" category. I think if Madeleine's death was an accident, it involved rape. Something SO HORRIBLE that it would ruin every one of the good doctors and their families for life.
It may very well have been a lethal dose of a legal over-the-counter type drug like Benadryl...We have had Benadryl over-sedation deaths in the US...remember toddler Dane Heggem?
I think what you have with physicians too often is a God complex.
I do think the drugging of the children would be enough to keep a secret....We also have the likelihood in this scenario of letting her die rather than getting her advanced life support (i.e., hospital)....I think losing a medical license would be worth keeping a secret over, especially with this group.
That being said, they could be keeping confidences with regard to sexual affairs instead or as well.
colomom
08-21-2008, 12:27 PM
I hear what you are saying IW. But I can't reconcile it with myself. If it was rape by one of the party members - I can't see how the others wouldn't have turned the person in, except for maybe the spouse. I can not see how the other 7 members would not say something, unless they were all a part of it and that is more than my mind can bear. Not impossible, I know, but I just don't see it. So..... what else is there? Drugs not enough to keep everyone silent, rape is too horrible to keep everyone silent.... What falls between these two extremes that could keep 9 people all on the same silent path?
It sounds to me that maybe at least a couple of the 9 don't know - maybe Diane Webster who supposedly reported some odd behavior? and Rachael or Fiona that reported about the breath checking of the twins? That would take us down to 7?
G&K we know why. That gives us 5? What would keep the other 5 silent? Tanner & O'Brien - maybe their part in the cover up. Oldfield - maybe the previous reports of his "ucky" behavior? Payne - I don't know (Do I have Oldfield and Payne mixed up?).
There is something here..........
Salem
Yes....
Payne is "ucky" and Oldfield is Kate's very best friend :rolleyes:
colomom
08-21-2008, 12:33 PM
Thanks to Leo for posting this on Proboards.....
The following information is summarized by Summer (no pun intended) from 'The Truth Of The Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral
WITH KIND REQUEST TO BUY THE BOOK IF/WHEN IT COMES OUT IN ENGLISH (me too - colomom)
Chapter 11 - Analysing a crime scene. Apartment 5A
- routine meetings between the investigators include the presence and the participation of English colleagues from Leicestershire, as well as José Freitas, a senior official from Scotland Yard, who is a British citizen, a descendant of Portuguese immigrants from Madeira
- this particular meeting is dedicated to analyse the photographic report that was made inside apartment 5A on the evening of the facts
- the first thing that jumps out is the ‘tidiness’ of the bedroom where Madeleine and her twin siblings were supposedly asleep. no signs of an abductor in the access to the bedroom window
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene1.jpg
- windowsill is 91 cms above the floor, a bed is placed against the wall, with signs of someone who slept in it. a wicker chair stands against the far wall. no markings of shoes on the chair, or on the bed
- conclusion: the window was not used for anything, or there were 2 abductors, one on the inside and one on the outside
- bedroom window is protected by a shutter on the outside. on the inside, an opaque curtain that reaches until the top of the windowsill, and two side curtains, that reach until the floor, with embraces. all the curtains are pulled towards the window centre, not covering it entirely
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene2.jpg
- the embrace on the right hand side lies on the floor, between the bed’s feet and the wicker chair, which is pushed against the curtain on the right. the embrace on the left side is hanging from the wall bracket, the left curtain is ruffled, making it look like someone pulled it close in a hurry
- none of the curtain’s embraces is in its normal position, suspended on the wall
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene3.jpg
- Kate says that when M was noticed missing, the curtains were completely closed, i.e. they would have been closed by the parents and the eventual abductor would have positioned them in that manner, in order to facilitate his passage through the window
- the embraces could only have landed in the position in which they were found, when the curtains were pulled shut. other possibility: the curtains were open and were taken out of that position after the disappearance. an abductor would not have wasted time with that; this action is more coincident with an intentional change of a crime scene
- other indicia pointing towards the change of the crime scene would surface
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene4.jpg
- the bed sheets and the position of the soft toy raised suspicions. bed looks like nobody slept there, soft toy is position symmetrically to the pillow, pink blanket is almost folded. father confirmed that the blanket and the soft toy were in that position when he went to check his daughter
- the two cots stand in the middle of the bedroom, making the movements of an adult rather difficult
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene5.jpg
- no bed sheets in the cots, only the mattresses; twins were taken out with sheets and everything, only woke up when they were taken into another apartment
- analysis of photographs of the living room: the sofa beneath one of the side windows is not in position, and the curtains of the window are pulled shut but rolled up and distorted
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene6.jpg
- the father would end up giving an explanation for the sofa’s position. the sofa was normally not pushed against the wall, but he pushed it against the wall because the children used to throw toys into the space behind the sofa while playing
- sofa may have played crucial role in the accident theory. if sofa was not pushed against the wall, M could have tried to access the window and fell between the sofa and the wall
- a digital camera is visible on the living room table, the investigators remark that they need the photos from that camera; they want to know what happened during the dinner, who sat where, what was eaten, what was drunk, who was close, what they were wearing, every detail
- the father dropped to his knees in front of the GNR officers when they arrived, made no sense as he is always under control - possibly to contaminate his trousers?
- in the couple’s bedroom, two beds are pushed together, a wide empty space between them and the wardrobe. one of the beds is made: nobody slept there
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/crimescene7.jpg
- empty space was apparently for one of the cots
- possible conclusions: the couple used to sleep in their bedroom with the twins, and M in the other bedroom; the children started sleeping all together in the other bedroom at some point; the spare bed in the children’s bedroom had been slept in; only one person slept in the couple’s bedroom; did the mother stop sleeping with the father and started sleeping with the children?
- not one single medicine was found, only a box of band-aids
Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1360&page=20 #293 (thanks summer and leo!)
colomom
08-21-2008, 01:01 PM
Ryan is my hero!!!
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2008/08/ryan-murphys-quick-thinking-saved.html
Ryan Murphy's quick thinking saved an abducted child in Quebec.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/RyanMurphySavedAbductedChild.jpg
and he's a babe too!!
Barnaby
08-21-2008, 01:20 PM
Ryan is my hero!!!
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2008/08/ryan-murphys-quick-thinking-saved.html
Ryan Murphy's quick thinking saved an abducted child in Quebec.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/RyanMurphySavedAbductedChild.jpg
and he's a babe too!!
What a wonderful story, thanks for posting Colomon! Such a stroke of luck that the boot opened & Ryan reacted to the situation! A real hero!
Salem
08-21-2008, 02:06 PM
I agree!!!!!! Good for Ryan and Thanks to Ryan! So glad he followed up and saved this precious little boy!
Salem
Salem
08-21-2008, 02:07 PM
OH - thanks Colomom for straightening me out on the Oldfield/Payne issue. I need to make myself a mnemonic so I can keep the two of them straight :)
Salem
Ciara
08-21-2008, 04:42 PM
Wow, Thank God for people like Ryan Murphy. Lord only knows what he saved that child from. Thanks Colomom for this story. I hope the child is not too traumatised by his ordeal poor thing.
As for the McCanns, the more of Colomom's links I read, the more disgusted I am by them and their so called friends:mad:
colomom
08-21-2008, 05:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvdnzIGtf50
Thewayaheadm has been creating some very interesting YouTube videos lately (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thewayaheadm), they will really cement things for you, IMO.
Worth checking out.
Barnaby
08-21-2008, 06:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvdnzIGtf50
Thewayaheadm has been creating some very interesting YouTube videos lately (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thewayaheadm), they will really cement things for you, IMO.
Worth checking out.
Wow! I had forgotten some of those ridiculous & heartless quotes, Colomon, thanks for posting.
They got back to normal in 5-6 weeks, lucky them!
Now they have their own children to look after!
The abductor might harm Madeleine but the coloboma was a good marketing ploy! OMG!
Losing Madeleine was like finding your student overdraft was gone, is this guy serious? This comment is despicable to put it mildly!
Sickening in the extreme!
twinkiesmom
08-21-2008, 10:17 PM
Accusing the abductor of drugging the twins!
twinkiesmom
08-21-2008, 10:19 PM
Losing Madeleine was like finding your student overdraft was gone, is this guy serious? This comment is despicable to put it mildly!
Sickening in the extreme!
Can a UK person explain this quote or is it just despicable on an international level?
Gatinho
08-22-2008, 06:27 AM
What he says is - "Its like going to the bank and finding yourself over your student overdraft"
Which means that you have spent more than the bank has allowed - you are overdrawn. By how much he doesn´t say. Perhaps the fund directors could help here by indicatiing the appropriate price for a missing child. :confused:
How he could make such an analogy I have no idea.
twinkiesmom
08-22-2008, 09:34 AM
What he says is - "Its like going to the bank and finding yourself over your student overdraft"
Which means that you have spent more than the bank has allowed - you are overdrawn. By how much he doesn´t say. Perhaps the fund directors could help here by indicatiing the appropriate price for a missing child. :confused:
How he could make such an analogy I have no idea.
We have the same term here (overdraft)...I was just wondering if it was something to do with a student loan...but instead he was talking about a student bank account...very curious....The McCann's have mastered the art of making money off a dead daughter.
Gatinho
08-22-2008, 10:37 AM
I think we can accept that Gerry McCann has a wonderful way with the English language - as does Kate. I wonder if he uses the same level of tact and sensitivity with his heart patients, like:
"Well, you probably have less than sixth months to live, its a bit like defaulting on your loan payments really." ?????
Refugee
08-22-2008, 11:44 AM
I think we can accept that Gerry McCann has a wonderful way with the English language - as does Kate. I wonder if he uses the same level of tact and sensitivity with his heart patients, like:
"Well, you probably have less than sixth months to live, its a bit like defaulting on your loan payments really." ?????
The guy is a total...grrrr....I cant say or I'll get banned!
Salem
08-22-2008, 12:15 PM
I think we can accept that Gerry McCann has a wonderful way with the English language - as does Kate. I wonder if he uses the same level of tact and sensitivity with his heart patients, like:
"Well, you probably have less than sixth months to live, its a bit like defaulting on your loan payments really." ?????
I know this isn't funny - but I laughed out loud at how rediculous this is. WOW! How could you compare your missing daughter to being overdrawn? Everyone (or just about) becomes overdrawn at one point or another - for so many different reasons. But very few people actually have a missing child. Heck if it was like an overdraft which can be fixed in a matter of an hour or two, a lot more children would go missing, because the parents would know the "situation" would be fixed in an hour or two. Very little stress involved here.
I also watched the video on Jane Tanner. Can any of these people say the same thing twice? Good indication of a liar is when they can't repeat what they said yesterday.
Salem
colomom
08-22-2008, 12:19 PM
I think we can accept that Gerry McCann has a wonderful way with the English language - as does Kate. I wonder if he uses the same level of tact and sensitivity with his heart patients, like:
"Well, you probably have less than sixth months to live, its a bit like defaulting on your loan payments really." ?????
I am sorry but this is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Brilliant Gatinho!!
The guy is a total...grrrr....I cant say or I'll get banned!
Now, now Refugee...you don't want to do that now do you? We are enjoying your company.
twinkiesmom
08-22-2008, 04:51 PM
I know this isn't funny - but I laughed out loud at how rediculous this is. WOW! How could you compare your missing daughter to being overdrawn?
Salem
But wasn't he referring to being "over the student overdraft"....talking about the windfall of cash they received subsequent to the disappearance.
daffodil
08-22-2008, 05:04 PM
But wasn't he referring to being "over the student overdraft"....talking about the windfall of cash they received subsequent to the disappearance.
They got money before she disappeared?????? :confused:
colomom
08-22-2008, 05:27 PM
But wasn't he referring to being "over the student overdraft"....talking about the windfall of cash they received subsequent to the disappearance.
Here is the transcript from the entire interview:
http://www.skynewstranscripts.co.uk/transcript.asp?id=362
IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and what brought it about?
KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]
GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally were shattered but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on.
IW: Well everyone who’s watching who has been following Madeleine’s case over the past three weeks just wishes you all the best. Thanks very much Gerry. Thanks very much Kate.
Barnaby
08-22-2008, 05:30 PM
They got money before she disappeared?????? :confused:
I think that "subsequent to" means after LOL!
Refugee
08-22-2008, 05:58 PM
I know this isn't funny - but I laughed out loud at how rediculous this is. WOW! How could you compare your missing daughter to being overdrawn? Everyone (or just about) becomes overdrawn at one point or another - for so many different reasons. But very few people actually have a missing child. Heck if it was like an overdraft which can be fixed in a matter of an hour or two, a lot more children would go missing, because the parents would know the "situation" would be fixed in an hour or two. Very little stress involved here.
I also watched the video on Jane Tanner. Can any of these people say the same thing twice? Good indication of a liar is when they can't repeat what they said yesterday.
Salem
to be a good liar - its essential to have a good memory! Alternatively you can agree that one of you speaks and the other keeps quiet - so for example, one of you refuses to answer 48 questions, so as not to clash with the other...get it?
Clever old McCanns - but not without support eh!
ShannonOhara
08-22-2008, 06:56 PM
Im sorry....what did he say????
Man thats just wrong.
If I overdraft my account....I call the bank and handle the situation
If my child is abducted....I go to pieces and then go on a rampage trying to find her, I work with authorities 100 %, I beg and plead for her return.
The 2 are not really similar.
colomom
08-22-2008, 07:19 PM
Im sorry....what did he say????
Man thats just wrong.
If I overdraft my account....I call the bank and handle the situation
If my child is abducted....I go to pieces and then go on a rampage trying to find her, I work with authorities 100 %, I beg and plead for her return.
The 2 are not really similar.
Not even close Shannon. I agree with your assessment of the aftermath of losing your child.
P.S. Nice to "see" you...
Texana
08-22-2008, 07:51 PM
Well, to be absolutely fair, I see what Gerry meant.
(Ahem, some people who freely use the word "witch hunt" need to take notes, please.)
Gerry was referring to the emotional aftermath, the way the couple felt emotionally a week or so later.
He was saying that emotionally they were so drained, there was literally nothing else there, like an empty tank of gas or an empty bank account, nothing to draw upon or use. Completely wiped out.
I think this is a true statement coming from him and actually, a very honest one. If Madeleine died an accidental death in that apartment, and they had that plus the unbelievable stress of trying to hide it (again, motivated by fear of losing the twins, etc.) they would be completely drained emotionally a week later.
Barnaby
08-22-2008, 09:04 PM
Well, to be absolutely fair, I see what Gerry meant.
(Ahem, some people who freely use the word "witch hunt" need to take notes, please.)
Gerry was referring to the emotional aftermath, the way the couple felt emotionally a week or so later.
He was saying that emotionally they were so drained, there was literally nothing else there, like an empty tank of gas or an empty bank account, nothing to draw upon or use. Completely wiped out.
I think this is a true statement coming from him and actually, a very honest one. If Madeleine died an accidental death in that apartment, and they had that plus the unbelievable stress of trying to hide it (again, motivated by fear of losing the twins, etc.) they would be completely drained emotionally a week later.
Ah Texana, you know when a student overdraft or loan is spent it usually means the the student cannot go out & get drunk, not in my wildest dreams could I equate this to losing a child!
Barnaby
08-22-2008, 09:07 PM
Im sorry....what did he say????
Man thats just wrong.
If I overdraft my account....I call the bank and handle the situation
If my child is abducted....I go to pieces and then go on a rampage trying to find her, I work with authorities 100 %, I beg and plead for her return.
The 2 are not really similar.
So right Shannon & you can in time with a little thrift rectify the overdraft situation, you can never ever get back the child that you have lost through your own fault although you sure try your hardest to cooperate with police to try to get any snippet of information that might help & you plead with whoever is alleged to have taken her to return her which the McCanns never really did!
To compare the loss of a precious child to being overdrawn in the bank is only despicable, there is absolutely no comparison no matter how much that overdraft is & a student one is way down the league! Here I think it is £1200, my God how little they value their child's life to make this trivial analogy!
Dolphinmomcca
08-22-2008, 09:25 PM
Wow, this board has slowed right down. I know there arent many posters today, but if anyone happens to see this, can you answer this for me??.........IF Gerry and Kate had anything to do with Madeleines disapearance WHERE did they put her body?? I cant just see them excusing themselves from their dinner, killing maddy, and then driving miles and miles to dump her somewhere?? do you know what I am getting at??? Maddy would have to be REALLY close by, in order for the timeline to work.......and noone can find her.....thats one reason I dont think Gerry and Kate did anything (Ive been wrong before, and I may be wrong again!) I mean you dont just kill someone and POOF! their body evaporates never to be seen again.
Texana
08-22-2008, 11:18 PM
Wow, this board has slowed right down. I know there arent many posters today, but if anyone happens to see this, can you answer this for me??.........IF Gerry and Kate had anything to do with Madeleines disapearance WHERE did they put her body?? I cant just see them excusing themselves from their dinner, killing maddy, and then driving miles and miles to dump her somewhere?? do you know what I am getting at??? Maddy would have to be REALLY close by, in order for the timeline to work.......and noone can find her.....thats one reason I dont think Gerry and Kate did anything (Ive been wrong before, and I may be wrong again!) I mean you dont just kill someone and POOF! their body evaporates never to be seen again.
Unfortunately, you can. In a large urban area, it happens all the time--you only have to dump the body in the trash dumpster and time things just right, before that dumpter's contents are merged with hundreds of others in a nasty landfill. Add the process of decomposition and the breakdown of organic material and it perfectly reasonable to assume as a logical outcome, that the body(ies) were disposed of in a very ordinary way. When it comes to dumping bodies in rural areas, the time line for total disappearance is a shocking figure--about six months to a year, if I recall correctly. With animal activity and normal processes again of decomposition, it is truly entirely possible for a body to POOF! disappear.
As for Madeleine, her disappearance occured in a an area of Portugal that was not very well populated or urbanized. You have a combination of urban plus ocean front plus rural/more rugged areas. Sadly, it would not take that long for a child's body to disappear via natural processes.
april4sky
08-23-2008, 04:02 AM
Wow, this board has slowed right down. I know there arent many posters today, but if anyone happens to see this, can you answer this for me??.........IF Gerry and Kate had anything to do with Madeleines disapearance WHERE did they put her body?? I cant just see them excusing themselves from their dinner, killing maddy, and then driving miles and miles to dump her somewhere?? do you know what I am getting at??? Maddy would have to be REALLY close by, in order for the timeline to work.......and noone can find her.....thats one reason I dont think Gerry and Kate did anything (Ive been wrong before, and I may be wrong again!) I mean you dont just kill someone and POOF! their body evaporates never to be seen again.IMO your right Dolphinmomcca.
It was a nonesense from the start and it makes no more sense now than it did then to accuse her parents of killing her IMO.
Some don't, or won't accept the conclusion of the Final report so there's still the same ole same ole...accusations without any basis in fact.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but IMO the conclusion of the Final report means it's over.
And the search for Madeleine will go on. :clap:
Barnaby
08-23-2008, 08:08 AM
Unfortunately, you can. In a large urban area, it happens all the time--you only have to dump the body in the trash dumpster and time things just right, before that dumpter's contents are merged with hundreds of others in a nasty landfill. Add the process of decomposition and the breakdown of organic material and it perfectly reasonable to assume as a logical outcome, that the body(ies) were disposed of in a very ordinary way. When it comes to dumping bodies in rural areas, the time line for total disappearance is a shocking figure--about six months to a year, if I recall correctly. With animal activity and normal processes again of decomposition, it is truly entirely possible for a body to POOF! disappear.
As for Madeleine, her disappearance occured in a an area of Portugal that was not very well populated or urbanized. You have a combination of urban plus ocean front plus rural/more rugged areas. Sadly, it would not take that long for a child's body to disappear via natural processes.
Sadly yes Texana, the bins were emptied that night around the time that the alarm was raised & before the search even got fully under way, we did see some being searched. Her little body could have been thrown in a bin anywhere in the town, I am very surprised that they didn't take the dogs to the landfill site, that should be done even yet!
However, I still have my suspicions about the Pet crem!
ThoughtFox
08-23-2008, 09:34 AM
Wow, this board has slowed right down. I know there arent many posters today, but if anyone happens to see this, can you answer this for me??.........IF Gerry and Kate had anything to do with Madeleines disapearance WHERE did they put her body?? I cant just see them excusing themselves from their dinner, killing maddy, and then driving miles and miles to dump her somewhere?? do you know what I am getting at??? Maddy would have to be REALLY close by, in order for the timeline to work.......and noone can find her.....thats one reason I dont think Gerry and Kate did anything (Ive been wrong before, and I may be wrong again!) I mean you dont just kill someone and POOF! their body evaporates never to be seen again.
Many people think they hid the body behind the couch or in another apartment that night. No one was restricting their movements over the weeks either, and they were routinely taking trash to the dump. Kate even used that as an excuse for the cadaver smell in the rental car - they had bags of trash and dirty diapers in the back, and there are photos of their car piled up with it.
They racked up hundreds of miles on their rental car, and no one followed them around at first.
colomom
08-23-2008, 09:47 AM
The theories about how the McCanns might have disposed of Maddie's body are numerous and most quite plausible. As far as "poof" never to be seen....what about Natalie? Or Stacy? Google "body never found", pretty scary actually. It happens.
In Praia Da Luz there are ancient underground catacombs, old wells, the sea, caves and acres of grassland less than a mile from town. Plus at the time Maddie vanished the streets were being repaired and had been dug up and there was an excavation behind the church. All these places could have been good hiding places. While sniffer dogs were used early on, the resources of this area are limited and something could have been missed.
Check out this theory: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2357284&postcount=132
Just one of many.
Refugee
08-23-2008, 09:54 AM
[QUOTE=colomom;2543299]The theories about how the McCanns might have disposed of Maddie's body are numerous and most quite plausible. As far as "poof" never to be seen....what about Natalie? Or Stacy? Google "body never found", pretty scary actually. It happens.
In Praia Da Luz there are ancient underground catacombs, old wells, the sea, caves and acres of grassland less than a mile from town. Plus at the time Maddie vanished the streets were being repaired and had been dug up and there was an excavation behind the church. All these places could have been good hiding places. While sniffer dogs were used early on, the resources of this area are limited and something could have been missed.
Check out this theory: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2357284&postcount=132
QUOTE]
We do know that Gerry was witnessed carrying a child toward the shore - this witness much more reliable than the farcical Tanner diversion!
Just one of many.[/
Dolphinmomcca
08-23-2008, 10:34 AM
Sorry, I didnt mean to get anyone riled up, I havent looked alot at this case like some people have. I was not implying that I support her parents in any way, because I dont! ......YOU DONT LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE...... it is there fault they lost their daughter, because they didnt want to be bothered to watch their children. IMO
Tony Bennett
08-23-2008, 10:49 AM
Wow, this board has slowed right down. I know there arent many posters today, but if anyone happens to see this, can you answer this for me??...IF Gerry and Kate had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance, WHERE did they put her body?? I can't just see them excusing themselves from their dinner, killing Maddy, and then driving miles and miles to dump her somewhere?? Do you know what I am getting at??? Maddy would have to be REALLY close by, in order for the timeline to work...and no-one can find her...that's one reason I don't think Gerry and Kate did anything (I've been wrong before, and I may be wrong again!). I mean you don't just kill someone and POOF! their body evaporates never to be seen again.
REPLY: Dolphinmomcca, you are making a massive assumption - that Madeleine died early evening on 3rd May. You need to consider a different time for her death.
There are many indications pointing to Madeleine being dead during the night of 2nd/3rd May. That would have given the McCanns and their 'Tapas 9' friends ample time to execute their abduction scenario at 10.00pm. Elsewhere on this forum, I have shown that there are severe doubts about each of the alleged eight 'sightings' of her during 3rd May.
In addition, there is an evidence trail pointing to Madeleine's body having been stored safely in a freezer, and then moved in the hired car.
The best explanation that fits the facts is that Madeleine's dead body was preserved by the McCanns in a freezer probably outside Praia da Luz, then buried by a friend of the McCanns, quite probably on the day the McCanns were being blessed by the Pope.
Kate McCann's underlying Catholic faith, however weak it was at the time of Madeleine's death, may have played a part here. She may have insisted on the nearest thing possible, under the circumstances, to a real funeral.
Was that day - the day the Pope touched them - Madeleine's funeral?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
colomom
08-23-2008, 11:03 AM
Sorry, I didnt mean to get anyone riled up, I havent looked alot at this case like some people have. I was not implying that I support her parents in any way, because I dont! ......YOU DONT LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE...... it is there fault they lost their daughter, because they didnt want to be bothered to watch their children. IMO
Sorry Dolphinmom....I guess you can tell that the regular posters on this board are those who have researched this case extensively. Like you said, the board has gone quiet. While I see evidence of many readers (check out the view numbers) it is primarily a core group that still posts. Most of us want to make sure that this case does not just fade away, even if some keep badgering us that it is over. It will never be over. Even if Maddie is found or we have a confession IT WILL NEVER BE OVER.
Because, just like you said, the lesson here is "DONT LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE" and there may be other lessons yet to be learned. Maddie will always be remembered as a child that was taken for granted, neglected and exposed to harm. A lesson we should all remember....forever.
Please feel free to post any questions you have and I am sure you will receive many responses with logical explanations. I don't think anyone meant to try and discount your feelings.
:blowkiss:
colomom
08-23-2008, 11:05 AM
REPLY: Dolphinmomcca, you are making a massive assumption - that Madeleine died early evening on 3rd May. You need to consider a different time for her death.
There are many indications pointing to Madeleine being dead during the night of 2nd/3rd May. That would have given the McCanns and their 'Tapas 9' friends ample time to execute their abduction scenario at 10.00pm. Elsewhere on this forum, I have shown that there are severe doubts about each of the alleged eight 'sightings' of her during 3rd May.
In addition, there is an evidence trail pointing to Madeleine's body having been stored safely in a freezer, and then moved in the hired car.
The best explanation that fits the facts is that Madeleine's dead body was preserved by the McCanns in a freezer probably outside Praia da Luz, then buried by a friend of the McCanns, quite probably on the day the McCanns were being blessed by the Pope.
Kate McCann's underlying Catholic faith, however weak it was at the time of Madeleine's death, may have played a part here. She may have insisted on the nearest thing possible, under the circumstances, to a real funeral.
Was that day - the day the Pope touched them - Madeleine's funeral?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMG...the mind boggles TB. If it turns out that this is the case, I will never trust again.
The McCanns legacy....lovely. :mad:
Dolphinmomcca
08-23-2008, 01:20 PM
Sorry Dolphinmom....I guess you can tell that the regular posters on this board are those who have researched this case extensively. Like you said, the board has gone quiet. While I see evidence of many readers (check out the view numbers) it is primarily a core group that still posts. Most of us want to make sure that this case does not just fade away, even if some keep badgering us that it is over. It will never be over. Even if Maddie is found or we have a confession IT WILL NEVER BE OVER.
Because, just like you said, the lesson here is "DONT LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE" and there may be other lessons yet to be learned. Maddie will always be remembered as a child that was taken for granted, neglected and exposed to harm. A lesson we should all remember....forever.
Please feel free to post any questions you have and I am sure you will receive many responses with logical explanations. I don't think anyone meant to try and discount your feelings.
:blowkiss:
No harm done :) Like I said, I havent looked into this case as much as some people have, but I have been obsessed with the find Madeleine website for months now......until I found this website and better info. This case really does fascinate me, I hope and hope that Madeleine is found safe, but at this point it looks very bleak :mad:
twinkiesmom
08-23-2008, 01:27 PM
REPLY: Dolphinmomcca, you are making a massive assumption - that Madeleine died early evening on 3rd May. You need to consider a different time for her death.
There are many indications pointing to Madeleine being dead during the night of 2nd/3rd May. That would have given the McCanns and their 'Tapas 9' friends ample time to execute their abduction scenario at 10.00pm. Elsewhere on this forum, I have shown that there are severe doubts about each of the alleged eight 'sightings' of her during 3rd May.
In addition, there is an evidence trail pointing to Madeleine's body having been stored safely in a freezer, and then moved in the hired car.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Questions:
Wasn't Madeleine in the creche on 3 May?
Did any additional information on the alleged freezer evidence come out in the PJ files?
Refugee
08-23-2008, 06:57 PM
So, have the McCanns and their expensive propaganda machine won the battle to divert attention from the truth?
It certainly seems that the political and media support has won the day for the 'negligent' pair!
It seems that inconsistancies such as Gerald McCann using a key - but his friends using an open door - are now accepted as 'normal' behaviour!
Is child neglect, abandonment, possibly worse, now acceptable - provided you have money?
Is there a culture amongst the media classes of child abandonment with the latest to join the McCann fan club being the crime-watch host Nick Ross, whose partner presenter was shot - another mysterious death!
cushty
08-23-2008, 07:02 PM
see the article in the tomorrow's Daily Mail, posted in media thread
the company mentioned in this article reveals this:
look at the nature of this company's business
Oakley International Group LlcIs This Your Company?
2550 M St Nw, Washington, DC 20037-1301, United States (Map)
Phone: (202) 457-6146
SIC:Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical Systems and Instruments
Line of Business:Mfg Search/Navigation Equipment
Detailed Oakley International Group Llc Company Profile
This company profile is for the private company Oakley International Group Llc, located in Washington, DC. Oakley International Group Llc's line of business is mfg search/navigation equipment.
Company Profile: Oakley International Group Llc
Year Started:2007
State of Incorporation:N/A
URL:N/A
Location Type:Single Location
Stock Symbol:N/A
Stock Exchange:N/A
Also Does Business As:N/A
NAICS:N/A
SIC #Code: View Details
Est. Annual Sales: View Details
Est. Employees:1
Est. Employees at Location:1
Contact Name:Kevin Richard Halligen
Contact Title:N/A
anything you can find out about this company would be welcome, especially when it was set up - Gerry McCann of course has paid two visits to Washington
perhaps some may recall how puzzled we were that a trip by both McCanns to find out about Amber Alert was not mentioned in the US press - perhaps that was just a front
Barnaby
08-23-2008, 08:12 PM
Very interesting indeed Cushty, thanks for posting. That company only set up in 2007 & their field of expertise is hardly investigative!
I read the article in the media thread, unbelievable how much money has been squandered by useless agencies employed by the McCanns, I wonder................!!
SleuthMom
08-23-2008, 08:27 PM
So, have the McCanns and their expensive propaganda machine won the battle to divert attention from the truth?
You know what? They can spend MILLIONS of dollars in their expensive propaganda and lawyers but at the end of it all, the MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC condemns them! And they know it! And they WON'T be able to live peacefully ever again!
I wish we could do with the Mc Canns the same thing that Argentines did with a former military guy accused of genocide. He was sent free and EVERY TIME he would go out to a restaurant or bar, cinema, you name it...and someone would recognize him, people would stand up and LEAVE! ONE BY ONE to the point that managers would have to ask the guy to leave because they did not want to lose costumers! They did this so many times that the guy was pretty much living inside his house.
Trino
08-23-2008, 09:11 PM
So, have the McCanns and their expensive propaganda machine won the battle to divert attention from the truth?
It certainly seems that the political and media support has won the day for the 'negligent' pair!
It seems that inconsistancies such as Gerald McCann using a key - but his friends using an open door - are now accepted as 'normal' behaviour!
Is child neglect, abandonment, possibly worse, now acceptable - provided you have money?
Going back to the OJ case, I think we've all found out how much money plays into a case.
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-23-2008, 09:47 PM
Going back to the OJ case, I think we've all found out how much money plays into a case.
Yep, no doubt. I was just thinking about that the other day when I watched an interview with K & G McCann. Not only the money factor, but also the arrogance. I feel they act just like OJ after he was acquitted. OJ did it, we all know he did it, he knows we all know he did it, but he celebrates the fact that money kept him out of prison. The only difference between the 2 cases is OJ used his own money, the McCanns used money collected by school children and little old ladies. The despicable attitude remains the same.
Texana
08-23-2008, 09:51 PM
REPLY: Dolphinmomcca, you are making a massive assumption - that Madeleine died early evening on 3rd May. You need to consider a different time for her death.
There are many indications pointing to Madeleine being dead during the night of 2nd/3rd May. That would have given the McCanns and their 'Tapas 9' friends ample time to execute their abduction scenario at 10.00pm. Elsewhere on this forum, I have shown that there are severe doubts about each of the alleged eight 'sightings' of her during 3rd May.
In addition, there is an evidence trail pointing to Madeleine's body having been stored safely in a freezer, and then moved in the hired car.
The best explanation that fits the facts is that Madeleine's dead body was preserved by the McCanns in a freezer probably outside Praia da Luz, then buried by a friend of the McCanns, quite probably on the day the McCanns were being blessed by the Pope.
Kate McCann's underlying Catholic faith, however weak it was at the time of Madeleine's death, may have played a part here. She may have insisted on the nearest thing possible, under the circumstances, to a real funeral.
Was that day - the day the Pope touched them - Madeleine's funeral?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is very plausible. It explains several unanswered questions:
A) Why the McCanns chose to go to the Pope for a blessing of Madeleine's picture, rather than staying in Portugal or going to other countries to search for Madeleine.
B) Why the McCanns have never expressed verbally much concern about Madeleine's treatment at the hands of said abductor, and have in fact, used words such as "being treated like a princess" and "giving them her tuppence's worth." Both are much more indicative of how people deal with grief by imagining how their loved ones are reacting and being treated in the hereafter.
C) Why the timeline and actions of the Tapas diners have never been confirmed, and will never be confirmed exactly--on May 3rd. They can't be. They were taking care of the aftermath of Madeleine's death.
Barnaby
08-23-2008, 11:15 PM
Yep, no doubt. I was just thinking about that the other day when I watched an interview with K & G McCann. Not only the money factor, but also the arrogance. I feel they act just like OJ after he was acquitted. OJ did it, we all know he did it, he knows we all know he did it, but he celebrates the fact that money kept him out of prison. The only difference between the 2 cases is OJ used his own money, the McCanns used money collected by school children and little old ladies. The despicable attitude remains the same.
Well said IW!
& hey, lol, prize homewrecker Angelina Jolie is now lending support to the McCanns, what a recommendation, ROFL! Maybe she can find & adopt Madeleine, LOL! One more trophy for her collection!
Sorry if anyone finds this post harsh but I don't appreciate women who find "happiness" by devastating another woman's life like she did to Jennifer Anniston & who use their money & fame to bypass adoption laws in third world countries!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/48 ... addie-mum/ (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/48469/Jolie-s-support-to-Maddie-mum/)
ThoughtFox
08-24-2008, 10:02 AM
Well said IW!
& hey, lol, prize homewrecker Angelina Jolie is now lending support to the McCanns, what a recommendation, ROFL! Maybe she can find & adopt Madeleine, LOL! One more trophy for her collection!
Sorry if anyone finds this post harsh but I don't appreciate women who find "happiness" by devastating another woman's life like she did to Jennifer Anniston & who use their money & fame to bypass adoption laws in third world countries!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/48 ... addie-mum/ (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/48469/Jolie-s-support-to-Maddie-mum/)
omg - just what they need - another celebrity apologist! :bang:
SleuthMom
08-24-2008, 11:07 AM
We know how Kate and Gerry like the highlight so I am sure they're thrilled in the idea of meeting Angelina Jolie, specially Kate. She will probably go shopping, do hair, etc for this big meeting and of course take as many pics as possible. :crazy:
Salem
08-24-2008, 12:10 PM
Very interesting indeed Cushty, thanks for posting. That company only set up in 2007 & their field of expertise is hardly investigative!
I read the article in the media thread, unbelievable how much money has been squandered by useless agencies employed by the McCanns, I wonder................!!
Could have been a diversion of funds - so company gets 1/2 and the McCanns get the other half with out anyone questioning where the money went? :eek:
Salem
Salem
08-24-2008, 12:17 PM
Respectfully snipped ~ Well said IW!
& hey, lol, prize homewrecker Angelina Jolie is now lending support to the McCanns, what a recommendation, ROFL! Maybe she can find & adopt Madeleine, LOL! One more trophy for her collection!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/48 ... addie-mum/ (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/48469/Jolie-s-support-to-Maddie-mum/)
This is just sad :mad:. Jolie knows nothing about this case. And Barnaby - I agree, I don't particularly like Jolie either. She changes her tune to often without showing any "realness" if you know what I mean?
Salem
Refugee
08-24-2008, 02:15 PM
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/
Kennedy, Brian Kennedy. Look at the photo and wonder...why does this man immerse himself in supporting neglectful parents?
Also caution, is this a new attempt to extract money from a gullible public? Why has the fund been at the same amount for so long?
How about a view of the accounts Mr Kennedy!
colomom
08-24-2008, 05:23 PM
Well said IW!
& hey, lol, prize homewrecker Angelina Jolie is now lending support to the McCanns, what a recommendation, ROFL! Maybe she can find & adopt Madeleine, LOL! One more trophy for her collection!
Sorry if anyone finds this post harsh but I don't appreciate women who find "happiness" by devastating another woman's life like she did to Jennifer Anniston & who use their money & fame to bypass adoption laws in third world countries!
I totally agree with you B...as usual.
I can't stand AJ but I would LOVE to send her a link to Thewayaheadm's YouTube videos and tell her that I think she has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is living on another planet.
She makes me ill....
Texana
08-24-2008, 06:34 PM
I totally agree about Angelina Jolie. She is so shallow with her Issue Du Jour attitude. She yanks those kids about month-to-month and the oldest ones are ending preschool age--unless she is going to hire private teachers and tutors (in the old days, called a governess) they are going to suffer mightily with their education.
Barnaby
08-24-2008, 08:44 PM
I totally agree with you B...as usual.
I can't stand AJ but I would LOVE to send her a link to Thewayaheadm's YouTube videos and tell her that I think she has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is living on another planet.
She makes me ill....
Makes me ill also with her vials of blood & her self confessed sexual deviance - loves knife sex OMG! - like who needs her? Some role model for her kids just like the McCanns I reckon it is an allegiance made in................ hell!
I totally agree about Angelina Jolie. She is so shallow with her Issue Du Jour attitude. She yanks those kids about month-to-month and the oldest ones are ending preschool age--unless she is going to hire private teachers and tutors (in the old days, called a governess) they are going to suffer mightily with their education.
Well Tex you have heard of trophy wives........... Angelina invented trophy kids! Like Colomon says, she makes me ill, really ill!
Big lips maketh not a mother!
Can anyone tell how much I loathe this woman? LOL!
Barnaby
08-24-2008, 08:55 PM
Respectfully snipped ~
This is just sad :mad:. Jolie knows nothing about this case. And Barnaby - I agree, I don't particularly like Jolie either. She changes her tune to often without showing any "realness" if you know what I mean?
Salem
Yes I know what you mean Salem, she is so false & up her own a***, please excuse my vulgarity but this woman defies anything that is sacred in the true meaning of a mother yet she adds to her family like she is Mother Teresa! If she is as concerned about child welfare as she pretends to be she should be speaking out against what the McCanns did not supporting them!
Tell me what true mother (& here on this site there are many truly caring mothers) who really respects her children would confess their sexual deviances to a magazine for publicity? I would shudder to think that in years to come my kids would read in the archives that I loved knife sex!
This woman ploughed through national red tape to adopt her latest aquisition regardless of the feelings of the child's family. The boys grandmother who raised him has just died. Her last wish was that she could see the child again, did Jolie with all her money facilitate that? NO! Says it all really! She is sooooooo all about her!
However, in fairness, I will say that the children would be looked after & not left alone like the McCanns did!
twinkiesmom
08-25-2008, 08:19 AM
As far as AJ, I will be very upset if she gets her Chinese girl in the next year....I have a friend who has been approved by the Chinese government for an adoption and has been waiting for her child for almost 2 years! This awaited for child will be the center of the couple's existence, not just another accessory to hand off to a nanny to throw on the pile!
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-25-2008, 03:41 PM
I have been bothered about a couple photographs from the McCann's personal collection for quite some time. These 2 pictures have been credited to Professional Photographer, Paul Grover. I am referring to these:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/Maddieinpool.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/i297687177_23774_5.jpg
Here is a little info on Paul Grover:
http://www.paulgroverphotos.co.uk/gallery/index.html
Paul Grover has been working as a photographer for the Daily Telegraph since 1991.
Covering news, sports and features in the UK and abroad.
And in diverse locations as the North Pole to South America, Africa, The Middle East and Asia.
Over the years, Paul’s gathered an extensive portfolio - which has contributed to an invaluable wealth of experience.
Including civil wars & famine, Prime Ministers past & present, weddings & celebrity events, football world cups, party political conferences, business, political & celebrity portraits.
Okay, this guy Paul Grover is a famous potographer. He shoots famous political figures, sports figures, celebrity events. He's an AP photographer who covered Obama's trip to London. Several pictures are credited to him of Obama and David Cameron. He's not the kind of guy you call up one day and say hey, why don't you stop by the house and take some topless pictures of my toddler in her kiddie pool and a family picture of us middle-class family. Not once, but at least twice. These pictures were not taken on the same day, Maddies bangs are longer in the pool picture. Also, the pool picture has been cropped vertically. The pixel dimensions are not equal to the family photo. The height is less, which proves to me, it was cropped to make it look innocent.
I've been trying to find a link between Grover and Brian Kennedy, and since Kennedy is a rich and famous sports team owner, they could know each other from that. I think there is something downright disgusting about Kennedy, Grover and McCann. Anyone have anything you can add on Grover? Why does he take pictures of little middle class topless British girls and US presidential candidates? I smell a rat.
daffodil
08-25-2008, 04:08 PM
Perhaps because he's a photographer?
Tony Bennett
08-25-2008, 04:49 PM
Sorry not to continue the discussion about Mr Grover - I want to get back to analysing the remarkable statements by the 'Tapas 9' now being released and translated.
I reproduce this copyright article, re Matthew Oldfield's statement, from 'Enfants Kidnappes' and comment on it in bold:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++
QUOTE
Matthew David Oldfield’s Statement
Under the supervision of Inspector Patricia D. It starts at 11.30, on the 5th of April.
REPLY: In an ideal world, it would have been much sooner - within 12 hours of Madeleine's 'disappearance' if at all possible
++++++++++
Since M O doesn’t speak Portuguese, Angela F M, an interpreter under oath is helping. As happened with the other statements, this statement has been read, its contents explained, and M.O. agreed to his own statement and signed it. So did the interpreter. This is the usual process with the statemnts since the beginning. When the interpreter signs the statements he/she commits himself/herself towards justice as regards the authenticity of the statement.
M.O. states that it is spontaneously and willingly that he does his statement. He is on holidays in Portugal, at the Ocean Club in P d L, since April the 28th, and is due to go back to England on the 5th of May.
He has known Madeleine’s parents for about 5 years. (He then names the people and children in the group). David andd Fiona gave them the idea of spending the holidays there. They did the hotel reservations, between 4 and 5 months ago. Since they arrived in Portugal, until yesterday night, the daily routine was that in the morning, they got up between 6.30am and 8am, walked to the Millenium, which took about ten minutes. Only Madeleine’s parents, Madeleine and the twins, had breakfast in their flats, the children being still too small.
After breakfast, the children were dropped at the Kid’s Club. Madeleine and Emma [name chnaged] went to a mini-club, the other children went to another club for younger children. It was the habit at lunch-time to meet in one of the apartments occupied by people from the group to have lunch with the children. During the afternoon, the children took a nap under the supervision of a grown up.
The other grown ups did sports inside the complex. After their nap, the children went back to the Kids’ Club.
REPLY: Hmmm. So, 12.30pm, back for some lunch in one of their apartments, then they all leave to play sport, leaving one adult in charge of 8 children. He doesn't say if they all the adults come back just beofre 2.30pm to take the children back to the mini-club/Kid's Club for the afternoon session. Also, Gerry McCann's 'last photo' of Madeleine and Sean with Gerry by the pool is not conisistent with what Matthew Oldfield says here. According to him, the children would all be having a nap before 2.30pm and then their parents (presumably) would take them all down to the kids' clubs.
++++++++++
At about 4.45pm, the children used to have dinner at the Tapas restaurant. Then they went to play to the playground, supervised by one grown-up.
REPLY: I assume the Paraiso is 'The Tapas restaurant'? So, dinner at the Tapas say 5pm to 6pm/6.30pm, then playing in the playground for another hour or so. Again, only one adult in charge of all 8 children?
++++++++++
Around 8.00pm, the children went to bed, and the grown ups had dinner together at the Tapas restaurant.
REPLY: But David Payne said that Madeleine McCann and the twins were already changed for bed, dressed in white and 'looking like angels' when he went there 'to check on Kate' at around 6.30pm!!
++++++++++
During their dinner, their children slept in their own apartment without any grown up supervising. M.O. adds that since the apartments were at a one minute walk from the restaurant, one grown up, at random, frequently went to see the children. While at the Kids’ Club, Madeleine had gone to the beach with the staff, but M O doesn’t know how many times.
The other activities of the children took place inside the complex. M.O. declares that Madeleine’s parents’ apartment is just before his.
The evening of the disappearance.
The day has been like before. Same as the other evenings, he and his wife left their daughter asleep and went to the Tapas restaurant, where Gerry and Kate had already arrived, probably 5 minutes before them.
REPLY: Hmmm. He does not mention the fact that neither the McCanns nor their three children were in the 'Tapas restaurant' that evening, as the photos revealed in the News of the World made clear. The McCanns' cover stories for what they were doing at this time appear to be (1) we were all having 'high tea' with the nanny Charlotte Pennington 'somewhere near the Tapas bar' [actual place not stated] at around 5pm to 6pm or (2) in Gerry McCann's case: 'I was playing tennis...or rather I was 'hanging around the tennis courts as I could not play any longer because of my Achilles tendon'.
++++++++++
David and Fiona arrived last, it would be around 9. Around 9.05, he went to the apartments, especially by the windows of all the children’s bedrooms. Not hearing noise, he thought they were asleep. All the windows wer closed, including the windows that led into the 4th appartment, where Madeleine was.
REPLY: Matthew Oldfield repeats the time line that Russell O'Brien was busily writing down on a scrap of paper [or, as we read elsewhere, on the torn-off cover from one of Madeleine's books]. Russell O'Brien has committed himself to a 'check' at around 9.00pm. He doesn't go into the apartment, and says the shutters are shut.
++++++++++
Yet, Gerry, Madeleine’s Daddy, went towards the appartments to check if Madeleine and the twins were asleep. Gerry may have gone into his flat, and checked if Madeleine and the twins were asleep in their bedroom, which was rather dark. The bedroom door was ajar. 5 minutes later, Gerry was back at the restaurant with the group.
REPLY: How does Matthew Oldfield know 'the apartment was rather dark'? At some stage, Gerry McCann must have told him. He would hardly have passed this remark on the night on returning to the Tapas bar. He wouldn't have said: "Guess what, Matt, the apartment was rather dark when I checked". No, Matthew Oldfield has been told this by Gerry McCann later - as they are comparing notes and working out what to tell the police. The same goes for the statement that the bedroom door was ajar - again, not something he would casually mention to Oldfield on returning to the Tapas bar.
Of course, Gerry was not back at the Tapas bar 'after 5 minutes'. According to Gerry McCann's own testimony, it was '15-20 minutes'.
In addition, no explanation whatsoever is offered as to what Matthew Oldfield was doing checking the apartment at 9.05pm when Gerry McCann says this is the precise time he set off to do his check.
++++++++++
The inspector having asked the question, M.O. says that he doesn’t know if Gerry met someone, he didn’t say.
During the meal, it was the habit that every 15 minutes (like every evening), one of the grown ups went to the bedrooms to see if the children were asleep. Normally the checking was done inside (visual checking). But to be honest, it happened that they only checked from outside, next to the bedroom windows (auditive checking).
REPLY: The '15 minutes' was no doubt said by Oldfield before the 'Tapas 9' all agreed to say that the checking was 'every half hour'. Also, he is quoted as saying: "One of the grown ups went to the bedrooms to see if the children were asleep". This is quite clear. One grown up went (singular), to check on the bedrooms (plural) to see if the children (plural) were asleep. It seems as though he is giving the clear impression here that one of the group went to check on all apartments. Yet Dianne Webster has been repeatedly quoted as saying that 'each couple was responsible for their own checking'.
++++++++++
As usual, dinner started at 9.30pm. At about 9.25pm, M.O. went into his flat and into Madeleine’s flat for the children’s checking. He specifies that the door of the 4th flat (where Madeleine and the twins were) was ajar, and that there was some sort of light, enough for him to see the twins in their cots. He couldn’t see the bed in which Madeleine slept, but as everything was quiet, he concluded that she was asleep. The light came from some artificial light, not from inside the bedroom, rather from outside. It seems to him that the shutters of the couple’s bedroom were open, without knowing if the window was open also.
REPLY: So many questions about this. So he entered the flat? Well, why didn't he at 9.05pm? Did Gerry McCann give him a key? - presumably not, as Oldfield tells us later that he ewalked in through an unlocked door. Through which door did he enter? Did he make sure the doors were locked when he left? How come Matthew Oldfield suddenly started checking on more than one apartment? Why did he check when Gerry had presumably reported back at 9.25pm that the kids were O.K.? And why does he suddenly remember making a check at 9.30pm when Russell O'Brien's carefully-written timeline, handed to police earlier, makes no mention whatsoever of a 9.30pm check by him?
Then we have what seems IMO to be a blatant and not-too-subtle attempt to create the scenario of the abductor having stolen Madeleine before his check at 9.30pm. For this to work, Matthew Oldfield asks us and the police to accept that:
1. He did 2 checks in the space of 25 minutes when Russell O'Brien's note says he did only one
2. He did not enter the apartment on the first of his two visits but apparently did on the second visit
3. He checked moreorless the same time as Gerry McCann did at around 9.05pm
4. He checked again at 9.30pm just 5 minutes after Gerry McCann returned from talking to Jeremy Wilkins
5. He entered the children's room and remembers seeing the twins asleep but not Madeleine
6. He 'thinks' the apartment was 'somewhat lighter' from artificial light outside
7. He 'thinks' the shutters were open but is not sure.
He is asking us to believe rather a lot.
++++++++++
The apartment comprises 2 bedrooms, a living room, kitchenette and toilet. One of the windows in the couple’s bedroom can be seen from the restaurant. The children’s bedroom windows look over the road inside the complex. Then M.O. went back to the restaurant.
He specifies that there are 2 windows in the bedroom. The twins’ cots were in the middle of the room, and Madeleine’s bed was against the wall facing the wall that had the 2 windows with an access inside the complex. The door he used to get into the flat was closed but unlocked. He doesn’t know if it is Madeleine’s parents habit to leave it unlocked, considering it can be seen from the restaurant.
REPLY: Destroying the McCanns' initial claim that their doors were locked.
++++++++++
Around 10pm, Kate, Madeleine’s mother, went to her appartment to check on her children. She came back utterly shocked and screaming, saying that Madeleine was no longer in her bedroom. At that time, all the grown ups were in the restaurant. They all went into Madeleine’s bedroom, saw that the twins were normally asleep.
REPLY: All went in? All 9 adults? His account differs in one important respect from that of Charlotte Pennington, who is certain the twins were not in their cots - and she also says she was the 'first to arrive' there - ahead of the 'Tapas 9'. In her statement, she says that she assumed that friends of the McCanns had moved the twins to the apartment of one of their friends.
++++++++++
There was no sign of a burglary. Only, one of the windows in the children’s bedroom was open. The window and the shutters were open.
Neither during the holidays nor yesterday, anything seemed out of the ordinary. None from the group had a different behaviour, especially Gerry, Kate, none of the children either.
Question: And outside the group?
No, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing in particular. The compex is quiet, and nothing out of the ordinary happened. During daytime, the children were taken care of by the staff of the Kids' Club. He doesn’t know if Madeleine has any disease or if she is under some medication. Madeleine is very energetic, obedient, communicates well, is an extrovert. Both her parents are very sociable, communicate well, are happy people, and prudent. The couple has an excellent relationship with their children and treats the three of them equally. The 3 children have been eagerly waited for by their parents and were born through 'in vitro' fecundation .
M.O. thinks it is a kidnapping, and a ransom is going to be asked from the parents, as they are quite well off, financially speaking.
[I]REPLY: IMO this is a totally fabricated statement, with many contradictions between his account and those of others, and many unexplained answers and important details left out. Oldfield invented much of this statement in order to enhance the probability of the abduction theory taking hold. IMO he knows fine well what has become of Madeleine
++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright Enfants Kidnappes translated by Marie Nicholas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been bothered about a couple photographs from the McCann's personal collection for quite some time. These 2 pictures have been credited to Professional Photographer, Paul Grover. I am referring to these:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/Maddieinpool.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/i297687177_23774_5.jpg
Here is a little info on Paul Grover:
http://www.paulgroverphotos.co.uk/gallery/index.html
Okay, this guy Paul Grover is a famous potographer. He shoots famous political figures, sports figures, celebrity events. He's an AP photographer who covered Obama's trip to London. Several pictures are credited to him of Obama and David Cameron. He's not the kind of guy you call up one day and say hey, why don't you stop by the house and take some topless pictures of my toddler in her kiddie pool and a family picture of us middle-class family. Not once, but at least twice. These pictures were not taken on the same day, Maddies bangs are longer in the pool picture. Also, the pool picture has been cropped vertically. The pixel dimensions are not equal to the family photo. The height is less, which proves to me, it was cropped to make it look innocent.
I've been trying to find a link between Grover and Brian Kennedy, and since Kennedy is a rich and famous sports team owner, they could know each other from that. I think there is something downright disgusting about Kennedy, Grover and McCann. Anyone have anything you can add on Grover? Why does he take pictures of little middle class topless British girls and US presidential candidates? I smell a rat.
.........
Tony Bennett
08-25-2008, 06:23 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1930904/Paul-Gascoigne-checks-into-rehab-after-'threatening-to-kill-himself'.html
Photo of famous England photographer Paul Gascoigne by Paul Grover
and recent photo by Paul Grover at the crime scene of another London teenager stabbed to death
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2246208/Sixteen-year-old-London-stab-victim-Shakilus-Townsend-pleaded-for-his-mother.html
and another Paul Grover photograph here:
http://article.wn.com/view/2008/07/11/Friendly_fire_disaster_Nine_British_paratroopers_m istaken_fo/
P.S. There is another photograph of Madeleine in what some have described as a suggestive pose and there has also been debate about the 'ice cream' photograph. I assume Grover did not take either of those?
This photo of a 3-year-old is certainly unusual:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w...ddieinpool.jpg
But then kids that age can make all sorts of faces to camera
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
daffodil
08-25-2008, 06:34 PM
What is the point of this about Paul Grover.........he's a photographer - he takes photographs!
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-25-2008, 06:37 PM
snipped to save space...++++++++++
Around 10pm, Kate, Madeleine’s mother, went to her appartment to check on her children. She came back utterly shocked and screaming, saying that Madeleine was no longer in her bedroom. At that time, all the grown ups were in the restaurant. They all went into Madeleine’s bedroom, saw that the twins were normally asleep.
REPLY: All went in? All 9 adults? His account differs in one important respect from that of Charlotte Pennington, who is certain the twins were not in their cots - and she also says she was the 'first to arrive' there - ahead of the 'Tapas 9'. In her statement, she says that she assumed that friends of the McCanns had moved the twins to the apartment of one of their friends.
++++++++++
Copyright Enfants Kidnappes translated by Marie Nicholas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny he states all the adults were at the resturant. Jane Tanner said in the Panorama interview she was already back in her apartment when Kate sounded the alarm.
What a sack of liers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
BILTON: According to the McCann timeline, at about 9.30 Matt Oldfield is the next to check on the children. Remember Gerry McCann says he had closed the bedroom door, but Matt Oldfield says he finds it open. He doesn't go in the room, he sees the twins but can't see Madeleine's bed. Because there's no noise he assumes everything is okay. At about 10 it's Kate McCann's turn to check on the children. The bedroom door is still open. As she closes it she feels a draft and knows something is wrong. A shutter on the side of the apartment they couldn't see from the tapas bar is open. Madeleine is missing. Kate McCann says she searches the flat three times before raising the alarm. Jane Tanner says that by this time she is already back in her apartment.
JANE: I went out to the front door of our apartment and then I saw Rachael came and said: "Oh Madeleine's gone!" So that was the first that I heard about it. And then I saw Kate and Fiona running around shouting 'Madeleine' and Kate said to me: "Jane, Madeleine's gone! Madeleine's gone!" and that was the first that I heard.
Barnaby
08-25-2008, 08:33 PM
I have been bothered about a couple photographs from the McCann's personal collection for quite some time. These 2 pictures have been credited to Professional Photographer, Paul Grover. I am referring to these:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/Maddieinpool.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/i297687177_23774_5.jpg
Here is a little info on Paul Grover:
http://www.paulgroverphotos.co.uk/gallery/index.html
Okay, this guy Paul Grover is a famous potographer. He shoots famous political figures, sports figures, celebrity events. He's an AP photographer who covered Obama's trip to London. Several pictures are credited to him of Obama and David Cameron. He's not the kind of guy you call up one day and say hey, why don't you stop by the house and take some topless pictures of my toddler in her kiddie pool and a family picture of us middle-class family. Not once, but at least twice. These pictures were not taken on the same day, Maddies bangs are longer in the pool picture. Also, the pool picture has been cropped vertically. The pixel dimensions are not equal to the family photo. The height is less, which proves to me, it was cropped to make it look innocent.
I've been trying to find a link between Grover and Brian Kennedy, and since Kennedy is a rich and famous sports team owner, they could know each other from that. I think there is something downright disgusting about Kennedy, Grover and McCann. Anyone have anything you can add on Grover? Why does he take pictures of little middle class topless British girls and US presidential candidates? I smell a rat.
Agree IW!
1. Not in a zillion years would I allow my young daughter to be photographed naked or semi naked by any man!
2. Whet the heck is this guy doing photographing for the McCanns? I questioned this photograph way back when the debate about the ice cream cone pic was ongoing!
Barnaby
08-25-2008, 08:43 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1930904/Paul-Gascoigne-checks-into-rehab-after-'threatening-to-kill-himself'.html
Photo of famous England photographer Paul Gascoigne by Paul Grover
and recent photo by Paul Grover at the crime scene of another London teenager stabbed to death
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2246208/Sixteen-year-old-London-stab-victim-Shakilus-Townsend-pleaded-for-his-mother.html
and another Paul Grover photograph here:
http://article.wn.com/view/2008/07/11/Friendly_fire_disaster_Nine_British_paratroopers_m istaken_fo/
P.S. There is another photograph of Madeleine in what some have described as a suggestive pose and there has also been debate about the 'ice cream' photograph. I assume Grover did not take either of those?
This photo of a 3-year-old is certainly unusual:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w...ddieinpool.jpg
But then kids that age can make all sorts of faces to camera
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony, I cannot see the photograph in your last link if you could post again please, TIA!
No I don't think that Grover took the ice cream pic but then who knows?
Regarding your Analysis of Matthew Oldfield's statement post, I absolutely agree wih you so many discrepancies, this is fabricated! Thank you for taking the time to comment on all of that Tony!
Interesting that this statement puts the famous "last" photograph into question, many people have questioned the authenticity of that Picture from day 1!
SleuthMom
08-25-2008, 09:12 PM
Grover is one of the many famous "friends" the McCanns have, no mater how much they try to portrait they are your average middle class family, we all know isn't true.
Barnaby
08-25-2008, 09:20 PM
Grover is one of the many famous "friends" the McCanns have, no mater how much they try to portrait they are your average middle class family, we all know isn't true.
Indeed SleuthMom, they appear to have many famous "friends" which would lead us to believe that they really in the upper echelons of society not middle class. However, a degree of wealth usually accompanies this status &:
1. they didn't put up one penny as a reward for Madeleine's recovery
&
2. they needed the fund to pay mortgage instalments so I am a little bit confused here! Just what "currency" are they using to exert all this influence?
SleuthMom
08-25-2008, 09:21 PM
Interestedwoman and Barnaby, take a look at this picture as well as the comments:
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/12/strange-picture-of-madeleine-from-paul.html
Barnaby
08-25-2008, 09:27 PM
Interestedwoman and Barnaby, take a look at this picture as well as the comments:
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/12/strange-picture-of-madeleine-from-paul.html
Yes Sleuth, another provocative pic of Madeleine, I had actually forgotten about that one! Comments are very interesting! What the hell were these people thinking & WHY? I really don't even want to think about the why!
Remember the taxi man who insists that he took Madeleine in his taxi with someone who looked like Kate & two men, to a hotel where there was a conference ongoing, British diplomats in attendance? The mind boggles!
This picture was also taken by Paul Grover, I think this guy should be investigated! If this was a simple fun shot captured at home then maybe it would be ok but this is a staged pose of a 3 year old for a professional photographer, very worrying!
SleuthMom
08-25-2008, 09:35 PM
Yes and very "lolita" type. I don't have any daughters (only sons) but it's just beyond me how a mother would allow such a provocative picture! Tasteless! UNLESS there is more to the story that we know about. We are talking about a PROFESSIONAL and FAMOUS photographer capturing on his camera a 3 year old toddler in certain poses? For what purpose?
I am afraid to suggest that these pictures have been taken with the purpose of contacting pedophiles and making the necessary arrangements for certain "meetings" to take place. Sorry if I sound very crude but the poses, the photographer, everything is just too odd...
This would also explain the cold nature of the McCanns as well as the silent pact of the Tapas 9.
Barnaby
08-25-2008, 09:43 PM
Yes and very "lolita" type. I don't have any daughters (only sons) but it's just beyond me how a mother would allow such a provocative picture! Tasteless! UNLESS there is more to the story that we know about. We are talking about a PROFESSIONAL and FAMOUS photographer capturing on his camera a 3 year old toddler in certain poses? For what purpose?
I am afraid to suggest that these pictures have been taken with the purpose of contacting pedophiles and making the necessary arrangements for certain "meetings" to take place. Sorry if I sound very crude but the poses, the photographer, everything is just too odd...
This would also explain the cold nature of the McCanns as well as the silent pact of the Tapas 9.
Believe me Sleuth, I have a daughter & never ever would I have allowed pics to be taken like were taken of Madeleine! That pose is provocative, the nude or semi one is a disgrace & the one with the giant ice cream cone defies explanation! There is something very, very weird about these pics & I shudder to think that those comments & your theory are correct but I have a sad feeling that they may well be!
I have tried to put myself in the position of my daughter being 3 years of age & me engaging a professional photographer to take those pics, my reaction is NO! NO! NO!
I am wondering how they got the child to pose in such an adult way, she had to be used to it. I can still remember my daughter dressed up in best outfits for parties & she absolutely hated me getting her to pose for pics & certainly at 3 years of age could never have held those provocative poses! All my pics are childish gawkiness if you know what I mean, I have beautiful pics of my daughter but all are natural, none posed, poised or provocative!
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-25-2008, 10:11 PM
Grover is one of the many famous "friends" the McCanns have, no mater how much they try to portrait they are your average middle class family, we all know isn't true.
Exactly, that is ONE of the my points. The McCanns claim to be middle class, living in a modest home, struggling to make house payments, normal every day folks. That was one of their selling points for "the fund"...and people bought it hook, line and sinker. But in all actuality, they could afford one of UK's premier photographers and have him take family portraits, (and toddler glamor shots) on more than one occasion. Most middle-class folk, (including Doctors), goes to Sears portrait studio. (or something similar) It would be like my GP having Anne Geddes come to the house and take pictures of his family.
Paul Grover doesn't take pictures for middle class, can't pay the mortgage folk. Give me a break.
Barnaby
08-25-2008, 10:40 PM
Exactly, that is ONE of the my points. The McCanns claim to be middle class, living in a modest home, struggling to make house payments, normal every day folks. That was one of their selling points for "the fund"...and people bought it hook, line and sinker. But in all actuality, they could afford one of UK's premier photographers and have him take family portraits, (and toddler glamor shots) on more than one occasion. Most middle-class folk, (including Doctors), goes to Sears portrait studio. (or something similar) It would be like my GP having Anne Geddes come to the house and take pictures of his family.
Paul Grover doesn't take pictures for middle class, can't pay the mortgage folk. Give me a break.
Yes, something very weird about this pair & their high life & connections! Weird that they had to use the fund to make two mortgage payments, isn't it, & couldn't afford a penny as a reward for their daughter's recovery, yet they can afford top photographer to take provocative pics of the 3 years old? :furious:
daffodil
08-26-2008, 07:52 AM
I dont see anything provocative about that picture at all,I think its cute and dodnt someone here (colomom?) have it as there avatar at one time? How do you know how much they paid for the photos? How do you know Gerry didnt operate on the photographer or a family member and it was a favor? How do you know the photo session wasnt a paid for gift by family? IMO its a huge leap to describing cute photos of a little girl as being taken for paedophiles.Some HUGE assumptions being made here with NO proof at all.
twinkiesmom
08-26-2008, 08:47 AM
This theory makes a lot of sense to me (drugged and fell down outside steps)...Any of the Tapas 9 could have discovered the body...would have accounted for the one male Tapas 9 being gone so long from the table...would have accounted for the dogs alerting on the flower bed (if near staircase)....The Tapas 9 who discovered her may have tried to resuscitate but then realized she had died and stashed the body behind the sofa to hide from the twins.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484850/Now-Portuguese-police-say-Madeleine-died-fall-staircase.html
Barnaby
08-26-2008, 09:07 AM
This theory makes a lot of sense to me (drugged and fell down outside steps)...Any of the Tapas 9 could have discovered the body...would have accounted for the one male Tapas 9 being gone so long from the table...would have accounted for the dogs alerting on the flower bed (if near staircase)....The Tapas 9 who discovered her may have tried to resuscitate but then realized she had died and stashed the body behind the sofa to hide from the twins.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484850/Now-Portuguese-police-say-Madeleine-died-fall-staircase.html
I just can't get my head around parents getting a shock like that & being able to jump into action so quickly to instigate a massive cover up. Surely there would be shock, grieving etc. which would impair that ability. Also the child would have had to be dead for two hours to leave the cadaver odour, I doubt that she would have been lying there unseen by anyone for that length of time & the blood dog didn't alert, I think in a fall like that she would have been cut somewhere.
I am just not buying this theory, more like the body was in a bag & placed there sometime later while being transferred to car.
twinkiesmom
08-26-2008, 09:22 AM
I just can't get my head around parents getting a shock like that & being able to jump into action so quickly to instigate a massive cover up. Surely there would be shock, grieving etc. which would impair that ability. Also the child would have had to be dead for two hours to leave the cadaver odour, I doubt that she would have been lying there unseen by anyone for that length of time & the blood dog didn't alert, I think in a fall like that she would have been cut somewhere.
I am just not buying this theory, more like the body was in a bag & placed there sometime later while being transferred to car.
They were all doctors trained to respond to emergencies without emotion.
There is such a thing as a closed head wound...JBR had one.
And you have to basically ignore all the dog evidence to come up with a scenario in which Madeleine was taken alive.
We do know the Tapas were at the bar for hours...she could have been dead most of the time they were there.
You can surmise from McCann statements as well as the continued sleep of the twins through the entire chaos that Madeleine was given a sedative....the entire building was covered with some sort of stucco material...any fall onto that material could have been fatal for a toddler. We also know that if Madeleine did awake she would have been desperate enough for her parents to attempt an escape...She spent the entire evening crying the night before, and her parents did not come back.
Barnaby
08-26-2008, 09:32 AM
They were all doctors trained to respond to emergencies without emotion.
There is such a thing as a closed head wound...JBR had one.
And you have to basically ignore all the dog evidence to come up with a scenario in which Madeleine was taken alive.
We do know the Tapas were at the bar for hours...she could have been dead most of the time they were there.
You can surmise from McCann statements as well as the continued sleep of the twins through the entire chaos that Madeleine was given a sedative....the entire building was covered with some sort of stucco material...any fall onto that material could have been fatal for a toddler. We also know that if Madeleine did awake she would have been desperate enough for her parents to attempt an escape...She spent the entire evening crying the night before, and her parents did not come back.
I don't think she was taken alive, I think she died in the apartment by whatever means!
twinkiesmom
08-26-2008, 12:47 PM
I don't think she was taken alive, I think she died in the apartment by whatever means!
But if you don't believe an intruder took her, clearly there was a cover up...
Barnaby
08-26-2008, 01:07 PM
But if you don't believe an intruder took her, clearly there was a cover up...
That is most definitely what I believe, a huge cover up!
colomom
08-26-2008, 01:28 PM
Agreed, cover up is evident.
The question is, how big of a cover up? It runs the gamut from just a Kate and Gerry cover up all the way to The Prime Minister of Great Britain and various persons along the way. The longer this case drags on, the bigger the conspiracy theories become.
I just keep telling myself....I believe in Occam's Razor.
~sigh
Tony Bennett
08-26-2008, 02:48 PM
Here's another contribution to the debate about Matthew Oldfield's statement - with some observations about Kate and Gerry McCann's contradictory statements about the evening of 2nd/3rd May as well - courtesy of 'Catalina' on another forum:
QUOTE
So let’s just get this straight...at approx. 9 p.m. M.O. goes to check his children, stops and listens outside the windows of the McCann apartment, returns to the Tapas Bar and tells the McCanns that all is quiet so their children are sleeping. So what does GM do? Have another swig of wine and relax a bit longer before checking? No, he gets straight up and goes ‘to check that the children were asleep’. Why, when he has just been told that all was O.K.?
When M.O. goes into the McCanns apartment later - again without being asked, it would appear - he says there is enough light from an artificial source, probably outside the apartment, for him to see the twins asleep in their cots and from this he deduces that the shutter was up. In his statement, he says that the room was dark when Gerry checked the children, but he wouldn’t have known that at the time - he didn’t go inside the first time.
He also says that when Gerry came back from checking on the children, he didn’t mention having met anyone on the way back. Kate says he did.
And I’m a bit puzzled about Madeleine’s comment at breakfast time on May 3rd. According to press interviews, the McCanns said that Madeleine asked Kate why she hadn’t come when she and Sean were crying the night before. In Gerry’s statement he says Madeleine asked him, and in Kate’s statement she says Madeleine asked her. But both statements refer to Madeleine asking why he or she didn’t come “when the TWINS were crying” the night before.
Is all this confusing, or what?!
UNQUOTE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
twinkiesmom
08-26-2008, 02:50 PM
I think this case is too convoluted for Occam's Razor...but I believe the dogs and Mrs. Fenn over all else.
Tony Bennett
08-26-2008, 03:34 PM
Rose Ron, a 4-year-old girl murdered by her stepfather/grandfather.
Another child reported 'missing' - but who was killed within her own family:
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-28182-israelnews-grandfather-murders-grandchild-then-dumps-4-year-olds-body-yarkon-ri
[NOTE: This report carries sound as well]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackwatch
08-26-2008, 03:56 PM
Agreed, cover up is evident.
The question is, how big of a cover up? It runs the gamut from just a Kate and Gerry cover up all the way to The Prime Minister of Great Britain and various persons along the way. The longer this case drags on, the bigger the conspiracy theories become.
I just keep telling myself....I believe in Occam's Razor.
~sigh
In some ways I agree, colomom. I've read where pedophile rings extend right up to the top brass in governments. Naturally, that's just what I've read.
Tony Bennett
08-26-2008, 04:22 PM
Blackwatch wrote:
I've read where paedophile rings extend right up to the top brass in governments. Naturally, that's just what I've read.
REPLY:
1. Kincora Boys Home - Northern Ireland.
2. Dunblane tragedy, Scotland (16 children shot dead) - see Cullen Report.
3. North Wales children's homes scandal.
4. Jersey children's homes deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby
08-26-2008, 07:10 PM
Agreed, cover up is evident.
The question is, how big of a cover up? It runs the gamut from just a Kate and Gerry cover up all the way to The Prime Minister of Great Britain and various persons along the way. The longer this case drags on, the bigger the conspiracy theories become.
I just keep telling myself....I believe in Occam's Razor.
~sigh
The level of protection that the McCanns have had is not ordinary, I have always thought that there is more to this & someone big involved, someway!
Rose Ron, a 4-year-old girl murdered by her stepfather/grandfather.
Another child reported 'missing' - but who was killed within her own family:
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-28182-israelnews-grandfather-murders-grandchild-then-dumps-4-year-olds-body-yarkon-ri
[NOTE: This report carries sound as well]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is truly shocking! However, vaguely familiar with the reports of McCanns wanting to hand over custody of Madeleine, is it not? This mother didn't want her child either!
Blackwatch wrote:
I've read where paedophile rings extend right up to the top brass in governments. Naturally, that's just what I've read.
REPLY:
1. Kincora Boys Home - Northern Ireland.
2. Dunblane tragedy, Scotland (16 children shot dead) - see Cullen Report.
3. North Wales children's homes scandal.
4. Jersey children's homes deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! Paedophilia is in a large number of cases associated with those in power!
Dolphinmomcca
08-26-2008, 09:17 PM
I have been bothered about a couple photographs from the McCann's personal collection for quite some time. These 2 pictures have been credited to Professional Photographer, Paul Grover. I am referring to these:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/Maddieinpool.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/i297687177_23774_5.jpg
Here is a little info on Paul Grover:
http://www.paulgroverphotos.co.uk/gallery/index.html
Okay, this guy Paul Grover is a famous potographer. He shoots famous political figures, sports figures, celebrity events. He's an AP photographer who covered Obama's trip to London. Several pictures are credited to him of Obama and David Cameron. He's not the kind of guy you call up one day and say hey, why don't you stop by the house and take some topless pictures of my toddler in her kiddie pool and a family picture of us middle-class family. Not once, but at least twice. These pictures were not taken on the same day, Maddies bangs are longer in the pool picture. Also, the pool picture has been cropped vertically. The pixel dimensions are not equal to the family photo. The height is less, which proves to me, it was cropped to make it look innocent.
I've been trying to find a link between Grover and Brian Kennedy, and since Kennedy is a rich and famous sports team owner, they could know each other from that. I think there is something downright disgusting about Kennedy, Grover and McCann. Anyone have anything you can add on Grover? Why does he take pictures of little middle class topless British girls and US presidential candidates? I smell a rat.
Omg, you can tell Maddie doesnt have a bathing suit on in the picture......which isnt all that weird, cause she is little, but to have some STRANGER taking pics of her naked (or with just bottoms on?? that makes me sick!!
Barnaby
08-26-2008, 09:33 PM
Omg, you can tell Maddie doesnt have a bathing suit on in the picture......which isnt all that weird, cause she is little, but to have some STRANGER taking pics of her naked (or with just bottoms on?? that makes me sick!!
Makes me sick also! In this day & age where paedophilia is rife why would any decent mother expose her child in this way? Making a child pose naked for a picture like this for a male photographer is SICK! SICK! SICK!
Texana
08-26-2008, 11:20 PM
Well, I'm going to argue a different tack. The photo of Maddie doesn't look so provocative to me, as it does mischievous. I can see where someone would see it as inappropriate, but I think this is one of those situations where the photog takes interesting! Different! Artsy! Photos of the child! because the parents are just so much more cooler, more educated, and more willing and able to drop large chunks of cash on the "in" photographers.
And within that comes a certain sort of blase response to anyone who might think that the photos without tops or bottoms were inappropriate when done by a stranger--"Why, it's art! How provincial! how naive! to think such a photo is the same as "nekkid" photo!" What is wrong with those people who think such a thing about a child!
That's how they see it, I am very sure.
What it always comes back to, is the extreme lack of judgment, the extremely lacking in sensitivity nature of the McCanns.
You or I might not want our children photographed in such a way. They find it perfectly appropriate. You or I would not leave our children alone in a strange apartment in a foreign country. They find it perfectly "responsible."
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-27-2008, 09:02 AM
Texana, I understand what you are saying. It makes a lot of sence...we've seen it happen to Miley Cyrus. Even though she's 15, a super star and extremely wealthy, (and not a toddler of a middle class family), it was still bad judgement and exploiting a minor child. The end result is a missing (abducted by a paedophile?) toddler.
I've seen the most precious pictures of children that are fully clothed, that I would consider true art. I guess it all has to do with what the adults of the family are "into". My DH is "into" Nebraska football...guess how many baby pictures we have of our children dressed in Cornhusker gear...More than I care to count...LOL
teacherbees
08-27-2008, 10:52 AM
My sister-in-law uses a celebrity photographer for her three children. This guy does fabulous work, but you pay through the nose for his exquisite art. He's in the LA area and has some very famous clients.
In all the artsy, beautiful photo shoots I've seen of my 2 nephews and 1 niece, I've never once seen anything even remotely provocative.
You can be artistic, daring and different without exploiting a three year old. But, as others have mentioned, it's all in the taste and preference of the parents. I remember a set of picture with JonBenet where she's in a bathing suit and straddling some kind of pool toy. There's something wrong with those pictures - I can only imagine that they're every pedophile's dream - as are so many of the Lolita images of a sexed-up JonBenet. It's sickening to think that she was five and six years old in those provacative looking phots we always see of her with big hair, adult outfits and pouty, suggestive looks. Makes my skin crawl to think of them.
Our children can't protect themselves - it becomes our sacred duty to make sure they are NOT exploited in any way.
daffodil
08-27-2008, 11:39 AM
How do any of you KNOW the photographer was a "stranger"? I dont know how you can even TELL Madeleine had no bathing suit on-I cant.In the case of JonBenet John Mark Karr said he PREFERRED little girls looking like little girls ie wearing cut offs,shorts,playsuits,hair in pigtails type appearance.I would hazard a guess many paedophiles prefer them that way and not dressed as mini adults.
Barnaby
08-27-2008, 01:18 PM
My sister-in-law uses a celebrity photographer for her three children. This guy does fabulous work, but you pay through the nose for his exquisite art. He's in the LA area and has some very famous clients.
In all the artsy, beautiful photo shoots I've seen of my 2 nephews and 1 niece, I've never once seen anything even remotely provocative.
You can be artistic, daring and different without exploiting a three year old. But, as others have mentioned, it's all in the taste and preference of the parents. I remember a set of picture with JonBenet where she's in a bathing suit and straddling some kind of pool toy. There's something wrong with those pictures - I can only imagine that they're every pedophile's dream - as are so many of the Lolita images of a sexed-up JonBenet. It's sickening to think that she was five and six years old in those provacative looking phots we always see of her with big hair, adult outfits and pouty, suggestive looks. Makes my skin crawl to think of them.
Our children can't protect themselves - it becomes our sacred duty to make sure they are NOT exploited in any way.
Agree with everything you say teacher & particularly the last comment!
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-27-2008, 01:44 PM
How do any of you KNOW the photographer was a "stranger"? I dont know how you can even TELL Madeleine had no bathing suit on-I cant.In the case of JonBenet John Mark Karr said he PREFERRED little girls looking like little girls ie wearing cut offs,shorts,playsuits,hair in pigtails type appearance.I would hazard a guess many paedophiles prefer them that way and not dressed as mini adults.
John Mark Karr was arrested on 5 counts of child pornography....not for possessing cute little pictures of sweet young girls on the playground. If that were the case, every person who owned a J.C. Penney's catalogue would be arrested for kiddie porn. He was completely and utterly obsessed with JonBenet Ramsey, a baby girl who was forced to dress up and parade around like a show girl for a living. If JonBenet was an ordinary little girl, none of us would have ever known she existed...especially John Mark Karr. :furious:
Barnaby
08-27-2008, 02:03 PM
John Mark Karr was arrested on 5 counts of child pornography....not for possessing cute little pictures of sweet young girls on the playground. If that were the case, every person who owned a J.C. Penney's catalogue would be arrested for kiddie porn. He was completely and utterly obsessed with JonBenet Ramsey, a baby girl who was forced to dress up and parade around like a show girl for a living. If JonBenet was an ordinary little girl, none of us would have ever known she existed...especially John Mark Karr. :furious:
:clap::clap::clap:
Texana
08-27-2008, 05:51 PM
Teacherbees, the really good photographers don't have to push the envelope on children's photos to get beautiful shots...but the ones who are just wanna bes and want to make a name for themselves with a certain kind of parent, they compensate for not being able to take a really great natural photo.
You are so right, it is the parents' job to protect children, first and foremost. So once again, I think this just shows the exceptionally poor judgment of the McCanns if they were indeed letting someone take photos of their child without clothes (beyond baby on a bearskin rug photos) outside of the family.
daffodil
08-27-2008, 06:12 PM
Talk about a rush to judgement! AGAIN I ask how do you KNOW any of the above is true? It all seems massive speculation imo.
Texana
08-27-2008, 07:36 PM
Talk about a rush to judgement! AGAIN I ask how do you KNOW any of the above is true? It all seems massive speculation imo.
It's not massive speculation that the McCanns used poor judgment in regards to the care and oversight of their children, it's a fact.
That their poor judgment might extend to other issues regarding their children is a reasonable conclusion.
SleuthMom
08-27-2008, 09:20 PM
It's not massive speculation that the McCanns used poor judgment in regards to the care and oversight of their children, it's a fact.
That their poor judgment might extend to other issues regarding their children is a reasonable conclusion.
:clap::clap::clap:
Texana
08-27-2008, 09:37 PM
:clap::clap::clap:
Thank you.
If there is one thing I have learned from working with parents for years, it is that poor judgment and good judgment are systematic. If you are a parent who makes good judgments, then 99.9% of the time, your decisions and acts are sound and the children are benefitted.
If you are a parent that shows poor judgment, the factors that made you do that, are carried over into other decisions and acts as well.
Sure, we all have the one-time lapse in judgment when we are stressed or overloaded or rushed. But consistently making a decision without those stress factors--as the McCanns did in deciding night after night to not take the children to the creche OR pay for the night time after hours nanny--that was not a rushed or stress decision.
Whatever factors led to that decision, did not disappear when they made other decisions and choices.
SleuthMom
08-27-2008, 11:19 PM
Thank you.
If there is one thing I have learned from working with parents for years, it is that poor judgment and good judgment are systematic. If you are a parent who makes good judgments, then 99.9% of the time, your decisions and acts are sound and the children are benefitted.
If you are a parent that shows poor judgment, the factors that made you do that, are carried over into other decisions and acts as well.
Sure, we all have the one-time lapse in judgment when we are stressed or overloaded or rushed. But consistently making a decision without those stress factors--as the McCanns did in deciding night after night to not take the children to the creche OR pay for the night time after hours nanny--that was not a rushed or stress decision.
Whatever factors led to that decision, did not disappear when they made other decisions and choices.
So true....and these are "educated" people *shaking head*. It is disturbing to say the least the fact that they left these three toddlers on their own while they went to dine and EVEN when one of them ended up missing, they STILL don't think they did anything WRONG! Scary thought if you ask me!
3 babies ALONEfor a WHOLE WEEK!!:furious::furious::furious:
april4sky
08-28-2008, 04:23 AM
Talk about a rush to judgement! AGAIN I ask how do you KNOW any of the above is true? It all seems massive speculation imo.Your right daffodil. IMO.
Some may not like it but this case has moved on. :clap:
To me the important thing the Final Report has done is to allow Madeleine to become the focus again for those of us who want her to be. :)
Tony Bennett
08-28-2008, 05:08 AM
april4sky wrote: "To me the important thing the Final Report has done is to allow Madeleine to become the focus again for those of us who want her to be".
REPLY: Why was she ever NOT the focus?
Because the Portuguese police knew that the McCanns and their Tapas 9 friends were not telling the whole truth about what happened to her. To put ot very charitably.
But now that she IS the focus again, by all means let's focus on her.
She was left on her own in a dark foreign apartment by Doctors who didn't want Madeleine and her 2-year-old twin sister and brother to interfere with their drinking sessions with their Doctor pals.
There is mich evidence that she died - and died in Apartment 5a in Praia da Luz. So let us have an event that focuses on if and how she died. Let us bring together all the witnesses who can help us solve the mystery of missing Madeleine.
Let us have an inquest into her disappearance/death.
And let us have a new law - to be called 'Madeleine's Law' in tribute to her memory - which criminalises leaving young children on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
april4sky
08-28-2008, 05:26 AM
There is mich evidence that she died
There is No evidence that Madeleine is dead.
If you have "evidence" to the contary I suggest you hand it over to the PJ. :)
Refugee
08-28-2008, 07:03 AM
There is No evidence that Madeleine is dead.
If you have "evidence" to the contary I suggest you hand it over to the PJ. :)
Of course she is dead, there is evidence, are your eyes tight shut?
Cadaver dogs do not detect cadaver scent in error - they have a 100% record of success. The McCanns behaviour is clear evidence that they know she is not in danger, she is - as they 'celebrated' in Rome with the Pope, quite dead.
Now we turn to the question, why do you and they require her to be alive?
Not through humane reasons, thats certainly not the McCann way is it! Their cold and heartless approach is not 'humane' is it!
Refugee
08-28-2008, 07:12 AM
I dont see anything provocative about that picture at all,I think its cute and dodnt someone here (colomom?) have it as there avatar at one time? How do you know how much they paid for the photos? How do you know Gerry didnt operate on the photographer or a family member and it was a favor? How do you know the photo session wasnt a paid for gift by family? IMO its a huge leap to describing cute photos of a little girl as being taken for paedophiles.Some HUGE assumptions being made here with NO proof at all.
..and you'd discuss anything except that which might make the holy pair look a little less than holy, right?
Its quite clear that the McCanns have 'connections' - I agree with you that this doesnt mean they are involved in anything unpleasant, but certainly there are questions which need answering, if not just because they claimed to be 'ordinary folk' - they dont seem to be 'ordinary'! Also the question of why they needed to use the fund to pay their mortgage when they are clearly 'well placed'!
Barnaby
08-28-2008, 07:13 AM
april4sky wrote: "To me the important thing the Final Report has done is to allow Madeleine to become the focus again for those of us who want her to be".
REPLY: Why was she ever NOT the focus?
Because the Portuguese police knew that the McCanns and their Tapas 9 friends were not telling the whole truth about what happened to her. To put ot very charitably.
But now that she IS the focus again, by all means let's focus on her.
She was left on her own in a dark foreign apartment by Doctors who didn't want Madeleine and her 2-year-old twin sister and brother to interfere with their drinking sessions with their Doctor pals.
There is mich evidence that she died - and died in Apartment 5a in Praia da Luz. So let us have an event that focuses on if and how she died. Let us bring together all the witnesses who can help us solve the mystery of missing Madeleine.
Let us have an inquest into her disappearance/death.
And let us have a new law - to be called 'Madeleine's Law' in tribute to her memory - which criminalises leaving young children on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amen to that!
Barnaby
08-28-2008, 07:45 AM
Of course she is dead, there is evidence, are your eyes tight shut?
Cadaver dogs do not detect cadaver scent in error - they have a 100% record of success. The McCanns behaviour is clear evidence that they know she is not in danger, she is - as they 'celebrated' in Rome with the Pope, quite dead.
Now we turn to the question, why do you and they require her to be alive?
Not through humane reasons, thats certainly not the McCann way is it! Their cold and heartless approach is not 'humane' is it!
I 100% agree that Madeleine is dead & PJ assumed that very early in the investigation. The cadaver dog does NOT detect the cadaver odour if it is not there & it didn't come from Kate's six cadavers back home or from rotting meat, chicken carcasses or soiled nappies
I have said before & I say again why did they assume responsibility for depositing the cadaver odour by trying to explain it away with these lame excuses? Doctors should have known better! If they were not responsible one would have expected then to ask who had the car before them? Who died in the apartment before they rented? Odour has nothing to do with us!
They were like cornered rats when this was discovered & reacted in a very transparent way!
The McCanns & their supporters need her to be alive because if anyone thinks otherwise & actually analyses the evidence like most of us here have done then their innocence in this matter is very much called into question!
& no they have not acted in an humane way at all, not ever! Their reaction has been arrogant, cold, callous, calculating, scheming & selfish from day 1! Madeleine has been little more than a "byline" in Gerry's blog!
Trino
08-28-2008, 09:44 AM
I like your "by-line" in Gerry's blog.
Texana
08-28-2008, 08:42 PM
There is No evidence that Madeleine is dead.
If you have "evidence" to the contary I suggest you hand it over to the PJ. :)
Cadaver dogs. Period. Statement declarative.
No credible sightings of Madeleine.
No credible attempts to claim the reward.
Seriously, the idea that an internet forum discussing this would somehow impede Madeleine being found alive someday is laughable.
Czar Nicholas and Czarina Alexandra of Russia and their entire family were gunned down by Communist revolutionaries before numerous eyewitnesses, and that did not stop sightings and a fairly believable report of their daughter Anastasia surviving.
April, when Maddie's parents make finding her the focus--not announcing jogging times, not having balloon launches, not having piper performances and Papal blesssings, not talking about getting back to normal with the twins--I'll believe that they truly believe there's a chance of finding her alive.
When the McCanns make finding their daughter a priority in acts as well as words, I'll believe she's still alive.
It is not a betrayal of Madeleine to come to the conclusion that realistically, she is probably no longer with us.
The McCanns themselves released the details of her colobama eye even though they were warned that doing so would endanger her life if she were abducted--it being such a highly distinctive characteristic. That act alone made it more likely Maddie would not be recovered alive--if she were indeed abducted by a pedophile.
The betrayal of Madeleine McCann happened when her parents to chose to again leave her and two toddler siblings alone in a foreign hotel room, more than a 15-20 minute walk from the restaurant where they dined with friends, with doors that were perhaps unlocked, or perhaps not.
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
08-28-2008, 09:36 PM
I think you are very rude and insulting :furious:.I believe in innocent until proven guilty and obviously the PJ found no evidence to charge them so if that makes me a "worshipper" in your eyes then so be it.:rolleyes:
Oh horse pucky. I've read your posts in the JBR threads. PR was never "proven guilty", but you openly admit you think she killed her daughter. Don't pretend this is a moral issue.
TinaD
08-28-2008, 10:11 PM
...I have said before & I say again why did they assume responsibility for depositing the cadaver odour by trying to explain it away with these lame excuses? Doctors should have known better! If they were not responsible one would have expected then to ask who had the car before them? Who died in the apartment before they rented? Odour has nothing to do with us!
They were like cornered rats when this was discovered & reacted in a very transparent way!
Well said - that was what tipped me into thinking they were responsible.
Tony Bennett
08-29-2008, 02:42 AM
Texana, your post (NO. 141) was excellent until this last sentence: "The betrayal of Madeleine McCann happened when her parents to chose to again leave her and two toddler siblings alone in a foreign hotel room, more than a 15-20 minute walk from the restaurant where they dined with friends, with doors that were perhaps unlocked, or perhaps not".
REPLY:
First point - it has been established that the walk from Tapas bar table to the apartment was in the region of 120 yards (110 metres for those who do metric) and the walking time for an average person would be around 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Second point - I think the whole scenario of Madeleine being abducted at around 9.15pm has been carefully staged, the story of half-hour checking etc. is wrong, the doors were neither 'unlocked' or 'locked' that night - the evidence points to Madeleine having died many hours before 10.00pm. Looking at the tangled stories of when and why the Tapas 9 were in and out of the McCanns' apartment that evening, it is apparent that there was a clean-up operation in the apartment that day and that Madeleine's body was removed to a safe location before the abduction alarm was raised at 10.00pm.
The evening of 3rd May was by no means a normal 'Tapas 9' evening at Praia da Luz. IMO they were play-acting normal in order to conceal a death.
A crime - and a reason for all four Doctors to be struck off the medical register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
little_miss_smart
08-29-2008, 03:13 PM
Madeleine McCann is dead! Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinkered.
Cadaver dogs.
15 out of 19 DNA markers.
No evidence of an abduction at all.
The shutter in the room - Kates fingerprints.
The lies, the inconsistencies.
There is more out there that points to Madeleines death than not. There is more out there to suggest the McCanns are involved than not. JMO
Barnaby
08-29-2008, 07:15 PM
Texana, your post (NO. 141) was excellent until this last sentence: "The betrayal of Madeleine McCann happened when her parents to chose to again leave her and two toddler siblings alone in a foreign hotel room, more than a 15-20 minute walk from the restaurant where they dined with friends, with doors that were perhaps unlocked, or perhaps not".
REPLY:
First point - it has been established that the walk from Tapas bar table to the apartment was in the region of 120 yards (110 metres for those who do metric) and the walking time for an average person would be around 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Second point - I think the whole scenario of Madeleine being abducted at around 9.15pm has been carefully staged, the story of half-hour checking etc. is wrong, the doors were neither 'unlocked' or 'locked' that night - the evidence points to Madeleine having died many hours before 10.00pm. Looking at the tangled stories of when and why the Tapas 9 were in and out of the McCanns' apartment that evening, it is apparent that there was a clean-up operation in the apartment that day and that Madeleine's body was removed to a safe location before the abduction alarm was raised at 10.00pm.
The evening of 3rd May was by no means a normal 'Tapas 9' evening at Praia da Luz. IMO they were play-acting normal in order to conceal a death.
A crime - and a reason for all four Doctors to be struck off the medical register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with your theory Tony, I think it was all done & dusted before the alarm was raised!
Poor little girl did not deserve this, I so wish that she could have a decent burial! Alas, I do not think this will ever happen, when Gerry said "Find the body & prove that we did it" he was very confident!
Madeleine McCann is dead! Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinkered.
Cadaver dogs.
15 out of 19 DNA markers.
No evidence of an abduction at all.
The shutter in the room - Kates fingerprints.
The lies, the inconsistencies.
There is more out there that points to Madeleines death than not. There is more out there to suggest the McCanns are involved than not. JMO
Very much agree!
Texana
08-29-2008, 07:44 PM
Texana, your post (NO. 141) was excellent until this last sentence: "The betrayal of Madeleine McCann happened when her parents to chose to again leave her and two toddler siblings alone in a foreign hotel room, more than a 15-20 minute walk from the restaurant where they dined with friends, with doors that were perhaps unlocked, or perhaps not".
REPLY:
First point - it has been established that the walk from Tapas bar table to the apartment was in the region of 120 yards (110 metres for those who do metric) and the walking time for an average person would be around 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Second point - I think the whole scenario of Madeleine being abducted at around 9.15pm has been carefully staged, the story of half-hour checking etc. is wrong, the doors were neither 'unlocked' or 'locked' that night - the evidence points to Madeleine having died many hours before 10.00pm. Looking at the tangled stories of when and why the Tapas 9 were in and out of the McCanns' apartment that evening, it is apparent that there was a clean-up operation in the apartment that day and that Madeleine's body was removed to a safe location before the abduction alarm was raised at 10.00pm.
The evening of 3rd May was by no means a normal 'Tapas 9' evening at Praia da Luz. IMO they were play-acting normal in order to conceal a death.
A crime - and a reason for all four Doctors to be struck off the medical register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that with the staging scenario and everything else, just playing devil's advocate in that even if you believe the weak and obviously falsified abduction story, the likelihood that Madeleine is alive is unrealistic.
The attitude that anyone who doesn't totally believe that she's out there somewhere just waiting for one of us to stumble across her is somehow not "there" for Madeleine--ridiculous.
Texana
08-29-2008, 07:44 PM
Tony, I forgot to add, excellent point about the doctors being taken off the Registry, I assume that's the equivalent of the American license to practice medicine.
Texana
08-29-2008, 07:46 PM
Madeleine McCann is dead! Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinkered.
Cadaver dogs.
15 out of 19 DNA markers.
No evidence of an abduction at all.
The shutter in the room - Kates fingerprints.
The lies, the inconsistencies.
There is more out there that points to Madeleines death than not. There is more out there to suggest the McCanns are involved than not. JMO
DING DING DING we have a winner for best summary in shortest amount of words. :)
colomom
08-29-2008, 11:15 PM
DING DING DING we have a winner for best summary in shortest amount of words. :)
Ain't that the truth....time for the banana dance.... :Banane57:
feynmanadmirer
08-30-2008, 04:46 AM
Hi everybody. Thank you for this wonderful platform to voice my opinion and for the contributions of all the members on this thread that I’ve been reading with great interest.
In the case of deciding “who is responsible” for the little girl’s disappearance I would use the Occam’s razor, as Colomom here referred to in one of his/her previous posts. For all we know, there may have been the Martians who abducted the girl and planted false memories in her parents’ heads to the effect that they themselves (the parents) think they are responsible for her disappearance, which resulted in all this mess. But we aren’t going to discuss those sort of scenarios. So when taking into account of what we know about the case it looks like parents are guilty of more than only leaving their children alone unsupervised. It looks as if they know much more than they are willing to publicly admit. To all of this I’d only say “so what?” Sorry. Please, let me explain.
I, for one, am not going to assume a “holier than thou” attitude towards the McCanns. To leave your children unsupervised when you are getting soused in a nearby drinking establishment, to me, I am sorry, but doesn’t sound like a big crime at all. We don’t get publicly humiliated nor convicted for things that are far worse than that. Also to want to have a holiday where you can have a rest from your work a n d your children as well, to me is not a crime either. As an aside, I enjoy the company of my children, but I can understand people who are built on different blue prints.
Now let’s tackle the rest of their possible crimes.
1. K, G overdosed M with some sort of a sedative.
2. K, G accidentally killed M in some other way.
3. M walked away on her own and got lost.
4. M got abducted.
What in our eyes makes the McCanns despicable criminals, I think, is that we think they are responsible for one of the above AND they tried to cover it up so as to save their skins, their licenses, their way of living.
But isn’t that understandable? They had two options:
A. To lose credibility as professional doctors in the public’s eye, be hounded by the media and possibly be jailed because of their negligence.
B. To become rich and famous.
As an upside of the first option, you would have been able to give your child a decent burial or, if she disappeared, genuinely search for her.
They chose the second option. Some of us probably aren’t too sure of what we would do ourselves in the circumstances, but we would expect to be hated and hounded by the world and by our own consciences if we chose the second option. So we treat them the way we would expect ourselves to be treated in case we made a mistake to choose the second option.
Now another point, if you’d be so patient. To me it is obvious that K is more responsible for what happened to her daughter than G is. Their body languages speak to me that G is covering up for K. The way K looks up to G, the way G is the spokesperson of their family. Had G been more responsible for their misfortune, no matter how faithful K may have been to her husband, some sort of hatred and mistrust would have shown through her public façade.
Now, is it not admirable to stick to your partner no matter what? Does G deserve to be so widely hated as he is? Does lying so as to safe your loved one is such a crime?
As for why T9 sticking together makes them all so despicable in the public’s eye, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they all are doctors. Had they been, say, sailors or actors or nearly anything except probably politicians or lawyers, their wall of silence or conspiracy would have been seen in a much more positive light, I reckon.
If you will bear with me, please,
there is one more possible scenario additional to the ones mentioned above. There was a question of the McCanns producing poster quality pictures of their daughter on a very short notice. It was as if they had brought the pictures of M from England ready for publication as it were. The case was widely discussed on the 3A forum. Sorry, if the mystery of the pictures has been solved and shelved, and only I am not aware of that. If not, was it possible that they planned the abduction of their daughter before even going to Portugal? Did they plan to pay their mortgages and rise to what they consider to be “the top” by way of staging and probably conducting the disappearance of their daughter? If it is the case, then the Macs are probably the first to have done something that by most moral standards would be considered to be cruel or even inhuman.
Thank you for your attention and sorry for the long inaugural speech :)
Tony Bennett
08-30-2008, 05:22 AM
Hi everybody. Thank you for this wonderful platform to voice my opinion and for the contributions of all the members on this thread that I’ve been reading with great interest.
In the case of deciding “who is responsible” for the little girl’s disappearance I would use the Occam’s razor, as Colomom here referred to in one of his/her previous posts. For all we know, there may have been the Martians who abducted the girl and planted false memories in her parents’ heads to the effect that they themselves (the parents) think they are responsible for her disappearance, which resulted in all this mess. But we aren’t going to discuss those sort of scenarios. So when taking into account of what we know about the case it looks like parents are guilty of more than only leaving their children alone unsupervised. It looks as if they know much more than they are willing to publicly admit. To all of this I’d only say “so what?” Sorry. Please, let me explain.
I, for one, am not going to assume a “holier than thou” attitude towards the McCanns. To leave your children unsupervised when you are getting soused in a nearby drinking establishment, to me, I am sorry, but doesn’t sound like a big crime at all. We don’t get publicly humiliated nor convicted for things that are far worse than that. Also to want to have a holiday where you can have a rest from your work a n d your children as well, to me is not a crime either. As an aside, I enjoy the company of my children, but I can understand people who are built on different blue prints.
Now let’s tackle the rest of their possible crimes.
1. K, G overdosed M with some sort of a sedative.
2. K, G accidentally killed M in some other way.
3. M walked away on her own and got lost.
4. M got abducted.
What in our eyes makes the McCanns despicable criminals, I think, is that we think they are responsible for one of the above AND they tried to cover it up so as to save their skins, their licenses, their way of living.
But isn’t that understandable? They had two options:
A. To lose credibility as professional doctors in the public’s eye, be hounded by the media and possibly be jailed because of their negligence.
B. To become rich and famous.
As an upside of the first option, you would have been able to give your child a decent burial or, if she disappeared, genuinely search for her.
They chose the second option. Some of us probably aren’t too sure of what we would do ourselves in the circumstances, but we would expect to be hated and hounded by the world and by our own consciences if we chose the second option. So we treat them the way we would expect ourselves to be treated in case we made a mistake to choose the second option.
Now another point, if you’d be so patient. To me it is obvious that K is more responsible for what happened to her daughter than G is. Their body languages speak to me that G is covering up for K. The way K looks up to G, the way G is the spokesperson of their family. Had G been more responsible for their misfortune, no matter how faithful K may have been to her husband, some sort of hatred and mistrust would have shown through her public façade.
Now, is it not admirable to stick to your partner no matter what? Does G deserve to be so widely hated as he is? Does lying so as to safe your loved one is such a crime?
As for why T9 sticking together makes them all so despicable in the public’s eye, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they all are doctors. Had they been, say, sailors or actors or nearly anything except probably politicians or lawyers, their wall of silence or conspiracy would have been seen in a much more positive light, I reckon.
If you will bear with me, please,
there is one more possible scenario additional to the ones mentioned above. There was a question of the McCanns producing poster quality pictures of their daughter on a very short notice. It was as if they had brought the pictures of M from England ready for publication as it were. The case was widely discussed on the 3A forum. Sorry, if the mystery of the pictures has been solved and shelved, and only I am not aware of that. If not, was it possible that they planned the abduction of their daughter before even going to Portugal? Did they plan to pay their mortgages and rise to what they consider to be “the top” by way of staging and probably conducting the disappearance of their daughter? If it is the case, then the Macs are probably the first to have done something that by most moral standards would be considered to be cruel or even inhuman.
Thank you for your attention and sorry for the long inaugural speech :)
REPLIES to feynmanadmirer:
feynmanadmirer: To leave your children unsupervised when you are getting soused in a nearby drinking establishment, to me, I am sorry, but doesn’t sound like a big crime at all.
REPLY: I've crossed you off the list of people who could babysit for my grandchildren, then. We have gone into all the risks of this course of action before in this forum, but let's just mention: playing with matches, fire, playing with cooker, other emergency, vomiting, choking, falling over, cutting yourself, swallowing drugs that look like sweets...and many more clear risks.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: Also to want to have a holiday where you can have a rest from your work a n d your children as well, to me is not a crime either.
REPLY: Not a crime. But weird when it comes to children so young. If the strain of being with them is so great, then leave them with a caring relative while you have a good break. There a few greater joys offered on this planet than watching and helping toddlers and young children learn about their environment, there are endless things to enjoy, to laugh at and wonder at.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: I enjoy the company of my children, but I can understand people who are built on different blue prints.
REPLY: Speaking as an ex-social worker, if I encountered a parent whose 'blueprint' meant they didn't enjoy the company of their children, I would place that parent under a period of therapy/assessment and, at the end of it, if the assessment still showed significant concerns, I would explore the possibility of the children being taken into the home of loving relatives - or failing that take care proceedings to remove the children from that home and protect them.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: "...to cover it up so as to save their skins, their licenses, their way of living. But isn’t that understandable?"
REPLY: Understandable, I concede. But saying something is 'understandable' is a million miles away from making it right, either in the eyes of the general public, or the law.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: "As an upside of the first option, you would have been able to give your child a decent burial..."
REPLY: For what it's worth, I am inclined to the view that Madeleine was buried - by friends of the McCanns, and while they were visiting the Pope.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: "To me it is obvious that K is more responsible for what happened to her daughter than G is..."
REPLY: You are one of the many to say so.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: "Now, is it not admirable to stick to your partner no matter what? Does G deserve to be so widely hated as he is? Does lying so as to safe your loved one is such a crime?"
REPLY: Are you losing sight of the fact that a crime seems to have been committed here? Death by accident, negligence, neglect or deliberate act. Denying the child an inquest. Hiding a body. Perverting or interfering with the course of justice. Fraud on a masive scale in setting up the Helping to Find Madeleine Trust Fund?
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: "As for why T9 sticking together makes them all so despicable in the public’s eye, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they all are doctors. Had they been, say, sailors or actors or nearly anything except probably politicians or lawyers, their wall of silence or conspiracy would have been seen in a much more positive light, I reckon".
REPLY: No. Their wall of silence is self-serving and to be condemned no more or no less than for anyone else who deliberately covers up a serious crime.
++++++++
feynmanadmirer: "There was a question of the McCanns producing poster quality pictures of their daughter on a very short notice. It was as if they had brought the pictures of M from England ready for publication as it were".
REPLY: For what it is worth, I reject all theories which suggest that this death/disappearance of Madeleine was pre-planned. The scenario which best fits the known facts here is that Madeleine perished during the night of 2nd/3rd May and that Gerry and or others hastily got some poster-size prints of Madeleine prepared during that day. I suspect he was busily
engaged during 3rd May in working out how to 'play' it at 10.00pm that night and that included having a supply of posters ready. I doubt he was 'playing tennis' continuously from 3.30pm to 7.00pm as he claims. The Ocean Club and police seem to have confirmed that those Madeleine posters could not have been produced on site
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
twinkiesmom
08-30-2008, 09:32 AM
I, for one, am not going to assume a “holier than thou” attitude towards the McCanns. To leave your children unsupervised when you are getting soused in a nearby drinking establishment, to me, I am sorry, but doesn’t sound like a big crime at all. We don’t get publicly humiliated nor convicted for things that are far worse than that. Also to want to have a holiday where you can have a rest from your work a n d your children as well, to me is not a crime either. As an aside, I enjoy the company of my children, but I can understand people who are built on different blue prints.
Thank you for your attention and sorry for the long inaugural speech :)
You obviously don't live in America, where people are sitting in prison for being less negligent than the McCanns. The Georgia case with the two drowned toddlers for one.
Parenting is a 24-7-365 proposition....There may be a short break but there is no holiday.
twinkiesmom
08-30-2008, 09:36 AM
Now another point, if you’d be so patient. To me it is obvious that K is more responsible for what happened to her daughter than G is.
Or Kate has a working conscience whereas grinning Gerry does not.
colomom
08-30-2008, 02:01 PM
Hello feynmanadmirer,
First thing....colomom is my nick and I really am a mom, hence I am a she. Just wanted to clear that up ;).
Second, while I enjoyed your post and I welcome your contribution, there is very little that I agree with there. That does not make it right or wrong, just it is what it is.
I believe that no matter what we do, there are forces that will bring all things into balance, eventually. I just pray that Madeleine is not suffering now.
So, welcome, I am looking forward to hearing from you again.
Texana
08-30-2008, 06:15 PM
[QUOTE=feynmanadmirer;2585501
I, for one, am not going to assume a “holier than thou” attitude towards the McCanns. To leave your children unsupervised when you are getting soused in a nearby drinking establishment, to me, I am sorry, but doesn’t sound like a big crime at all. We don’t get publicly humiliated nor convicted for things that are far worse than that. Also to want to have a holiday where you can have a rest from your work a n d your children as well, to me is not a crime either. As an aside, I enjoy the company of my children, but I can understand people who are built on different blue prints.
:)[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the board.
With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you think leaving small children unsupervised while you are at a bar many yards away (too far to see, hear, or even get to them in time for fire) it is against the law with serious penalties for a good reason--not just in the United States but in countries such as Great Britain as well.
I'm not sure what things you are referring to that are worse, that people aren't convicted or humiliated for--but that doesn't matter either. Letting the McCanns off the responsibility hook just because someone somewhere else gets away with something morally worse, doesn't make sense.
Rewrite the scenario. What if Mrs. Fenn, in the upstairs apartment, had been a chain smoker who fell asleep in bed with a lit cigarette? In the metroplex near me every year at least two or more children die in fires--and they were left unattended.
Nobody is saying that the McCanns and the other members of the Tapas dining party had to be with their children all evening and every hour of the day. The desire to be with children or not while relaxing or whatever has nothing to do with this fact:
The McCanns presented as one (of the several) reasons that they left the children alone was that "they didn't want the children with strangers." (even though the "stranger" would have been one of the childcare workers from the creche that the children knew.)
So they chose to leave their children ALONE rather than with a "stranger." What the hell kind of reasoning is that?
It's so bizarre that it actually argues more for a staging scenario/accidental death.
All the same, Kate still claimed that what kept her going in the immediate days after the "disappearance" was "the knowledge that we are responsible parents."
Delusional. Not responsible.
twinkiesmom
08-30-2008, 06:50 PM
Nobody is saying that the McCanns and the other members of the Tapas dining party had to be with their children all evening and every hour of the day.
No, the point is that SOMEONE should have been watching them...Since the Tapas group had made use of the creche during the day and had their grown-up time without the children, they should have made the sacrifice to spend the evening with their children or hired a nanny to do so in their place OR they could have taken turns doing the child minding while Tapas 9minus1 had their party.
It's sick and demented to think this is normal parental behavior...to leave babies unattended....especially babies that you had fought to bring into this world.
SleuthMom
08-30-2008, 07:28 PM
which I confess I forgot about earlier-too busy waving McCann banners and sending them fan letters :rolleyes::Banane31::deal: :uk:
LOL!!! I won't be surprised in the least. :crazy:
Texana
08-30-2008, 08:19 PM
No, the point is that SOMEONE should have been watching them...Since the Tapas group had made use of the creche during the day and had their grown-up time without the children, they should have made the sacrifice to spend the evening with their children or hired a nanny to do so in their place OR they could have taken turns doing the child minding while Tapas 9minus1 had their party.
It's sick and demented to think this is normal parental behavior...to leave babies unattended....especially babies that you had fought to bring into this world.
Exactly. What sickens me is that the McCanns wanted it both ways. They wanted and still want to be perceived as "good parents." They constantly bring up how they are doing this or that for the twins--they have the Clarence Media Machine cranking out interviews with friends that talk about what a good mother Kate is--they even defend their decision because it "felt so safe."
However, they don't want to sacrifice one tiny bit to actually be good parents. We know that May 3--if Madeleine was indeed alive that night--was NOT the first night the children were left alone. So they chose not to hire a sitter for at least one night when she was still alive--to save money? They didn't put the children in the night time creche so they wouldn't have to bother taking them back and putting them to bed again?
I honestly can accept they are selfish parents and I can believe they participated in a cover up to save their own skins and preserve what was left of their family, simply because they seem to feel so entitled to everything. They felt entitled to have a good and primarily adult-oriented time on holiday even though they brought along small children, they feel they are entitled to be considered good parents by the rest of the world.
So, would they be entitled to feel that "bending" a few laws was okay? You bet. They epitomize arrogance and entitlement with their previous decisions, they cannot change in a crisis, or for that matter, the rest of their lives.
twinkiesmom
08-30-2008, 10:27 PM
Exactly. What sickens me is that the McCanns wanted it both ways. They wanted and still want to be perceived as "good parents." They constantly bring up how they are doing this or that for the twins--they have the Clarence Media Machine cranking out interviews with friends that talk about what a good mother Kate is--they even defend their decision because it "felt so safe."
However, they don't want to sacrifice one tiny bit to actually be good parents. We know that May 3--if Madeleine was indeed alive that night--was NOT the first night the children were left alone. So they chose not to hire a sitter for at least one night when she was still alive--to save money? They didn't put the children in the night time creche so they wouldn't have to bother taking them back and putting them to bed again?
I honestly can accept they are selfish parents and I can believe they participated in a cover up to save their own skins and preserve what was left of their family, simply because they seem to feel so entitled to everything. They felt entitled to have a good and primarily adult-oriented time on holiday even though they brought along small children, they feel they are entitled to be considered good parents by the rest of the world.
So, would they be entitled to feel that "bending" a few laws was okay? You bet. They epitomize arrogance and entitlement with their previous decisions, they cannot change in a crisis, or for that matter, the rest of their lives.
The "good parents" schtick is just clever marketing strategy to shake a few coins from children and pensioners to keep the fund going. No one with any sense thinks they're good parents.
What gets to me is why anyone thinks these two are any better than Casey Anthony? Both neglected or killed their daughter to party. The McCann's are just cleaner cut and better educated...morally, I don't see much difference.
Texana
08-30-2008, 10:29 PM
The "good parents" schtick is just clever marketing strategy to shake a few coins from children and pensioners to keep the fund going. No one with any sense thinks they're good parents.
What gets to me is why anyone thinks these two are any better than Casey Anthony? Both neglected or killed their daughter to party. The McCann's are just cleaner cut and better educated...morally, I don't see much difference.
There's not much difference. If the McCanns had been minority parents in any city, they would be sitting in prison right now.
ThoughtFox
08-31-2008, 04:35 AM
I, for one, am not going to assume a “holier than thou” attitude towards the McCanns. To leave your children unsupervised when you are getting soused in a nearby drinking establishment, to me, I am sorry, but doesn’t sound like a big crime at all. We don’t get publicly humiliated nor convicted for things that are far worse than that. Also to want to have a holiday where you can have a rest from your work a n d your children as well, to me is not a crime either. As an aside, I enjoy the company of my children, but I can understand people who are built on different blue prints.
Number One: They didn't have to take their kids on holiday with them - that was a choice.
Number Two: They could have had a babysitter "in the room" with the kids. That is something anyone in the U.S. would do. I've known people who always travel with a relative who can stay in the room with the kids so the other adults can go down to have a drink. That is logical.
Leaving three very young kids alone with an unlocked door and magically believing they are "safe as houses or backgardens" is undeniably risky and neglectful.
ThoughtFox
08-31-2008, 04:45 AM
There's not much difference. If the McCanns had been minority parents in any city, they would be sitting in prison right now.
Absolutely. I don't know why this is even debated!!!
I did a Google Search for "Child Neglect" news stories:
Manassas Virginia: Parents Arrested After Children Found Home Alone (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1468515)
~Two boys, 4 and 5, left locked in a bedroom without parents home - taken into Child Protective Custody.
Fremont Nebraska: Mother Charged with Child Neglect (http://www.fremonttribune.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/local/doc48ac387d3185d521780529.txt)
~The Mom let two small kids play in the front yard and road around some cars, and wouldn't answer the door, so she was charged with neglect. She wasn't far away, but she wasn't watching her kids, end of story.
Tampa Florida: Wandering Tot Earns Mom Child Neglect Charge (http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2008/aug/16/ha-wandering-tot-earns-mom-child-neglect-charge/)
~This one speaks for itself - and it sounds vaguely familiar:
SPRING HILL - A woman was charged with child neglect Thursday after a motorist saw her 3-year-old son wandering around her front yard.
The passerby called authorities around 2:15 p.m. and the reporting deputy, William Horvath, said he found the child wearing only a diaper and playing with electrical wiring at 4364 Lamson Ave.
Horvath left the child with the concerned citizen and walked through the open front door to investigate. He and his backup deputy discovered the mother, 19-year-old Melissa Crossman, sleeping under a blanket, a report states.
Crossman was awoken and told her son was outside playing in the front yard.
Her alleged reply: "Ah, he got out the front door again."
The suspect was led outside to join her son, while the deputies made another search of the house. Horvath said he found the house in "disarray," with piles of dirty dishes and bottles of medication and toxic household cleaners within easy access of the child. When the deputy asked the child to demonstrate how he got out of the house, the tot snapped the child safety latch, unlocked the deadbolt and unlocked the doorknob "in a matter of seconds," a report states.
Horvath consulted with the State Attorney's Office and they agreed that a child neglect charged was appropriate.
feynmanadmirer
08-31-2008, 05:24 AM
Hello feynmanadmirer,
First thing....colomom is my nick and I really am a mom, hence I am a she. Just wanted to clear that up ;).
Second, while I enjoyed your post and I welcome your contribution, there is very little that I agree with there. That does not make it right or wrong, just it is what it is.
I believe that no matter what we do, there are forces that will bring all things into balance, eventually. I just pray that Madeleine is not suffering now.
So, welcome, I am looking forward to hearing from you again.
Hi colomom. Thank you for your welcome and everyone who has responded. And it’s ok you, or Tony Bennett or twinkiesmom not agreeing with most of what I said. Funny enough I do agree with most of what you’ve said in nearly all the messages I’ve read.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning the behaviour of people who leave their babies unattended. I agree with Tony Bennett here regarding the dangers of : “playing with matches, fire, playing with cooker, other emergency, vomiting, choking, falling over, cutting yourself, swallowing drugs that look like sweets...and many more clear risks”
My saying “it’s not a crime” really meant that most of us are so prone to doing all sorts of offences, and then we try to get away with whatever we do. Hands up who has done something punishable by law, got away with it, and then actually surrendered herself to the authorities to be punished? Say, you exceeded the speed limit and were NOT apprehended by the police, would you go to them voluntarily and pay the fine and surrender your drivers’ license happily informing the officer that you were drunk when driving too?
The most hateful aspect of the Macs activity, I think, has to do with them going too far in their attempt to appear innocent. It is meeting the Pope, collecting all that money, meeting important people and - what is worst – enjoying their new found celebrity status which was arguably based on lies.
Here I think they didn’t have much of a choice, though. Once they decided to get away with the murder, they couldn’t very well say, they didn’t need the money or support to search for M, could they? And when their well placed pals and the public offered their help, they had to play along by gracefully and gratefully accepting the donations. Now it all has snowballed into a farce, over which they arguably haven’t much control. The Macs have to keep going “kissing kiddies” and “launching balloons”.
As for G rooting for K.
Again, I ask you, if your daughter accidentally committed a manslaughter and you were the sole witness, the only one who could land her in prison or let her go free, would you testify against your own daughter or you’d rather keep quiet or lie? That I think was the dilemma G was facing in respect to K.
Now, colomom, the only problem I’ve ever had with your posts – and this line disappointed me, to be honest - was your saying
<quote>
[snip] I just pray that Madeleine is not suffering now.
</quote>
Here I agree with the famous philosopher Daniel Dennett who in his letter “Thank goodness I’m alive” expressed the opinion that <quote> if you truly wish somebody to do well, then would it not be better to take the time and resources devoted to prayer and devote them to doing something that is actually useful? </quote>
And one of my best loved quotes on this forum was what Refugee was saying on his/her message #446 (thread 24)
<quote>
[snip].. but I will say this, just like those who believe in a god, I have a right not to believe in a god! It is a bit unfair that those who believe are allowed to make religious statements, but those who dont are told we must keep quiet and respect the beliefs of the god fearing!
</quote>
I really loved that.
Thank you.
Barnaby
08-31-2008, 08:51 AM
Hi colomom. Thank you for your welcome and everyone who has responded. And it’s ok you, or Tony Bennett or twinkiesmom not agreeing with most of what I said. Funny enough I do agree with most of what you’ve said in nearly all the messages I’ve read.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning the behaviour of people who leave their babies unattended. I agree with Tony Bennett here regarding the dangers of : “playing with matches, fire, playing with cooker, other emergency, vomiting, choking, falling over, cutting yourself, swallowing drugs that look like sweets...and many more clear risks”
My saying “it’s not a crime” really meant that most of us are so prone to doing all sorts of offences, and then we try to get away with whatever we do. Hands up who has done something punishable by law, got away with it, and then actually surrendered herself to the authorities to be punished? Say, you exceeded the speed limit and were NOT apprehended by the police, would you go to them voluntarily and pay the fine and surrender your drivers’ license happily informing the officer that you were drunk when driving too?
The most hateful aspect of the Macs activity, I think, has to do with them going too far in their attempt to appear innocent. It is meeting the Pope, collecting all that money, meeting important people and - what is worst – enjoying their new found celebrity status which was arguably based on lies.
Here I think they didn’t have much of a choice, though. Once they decided to get away with the murder, they couldn’t very well say, they didn’t need the money or support to search for M, could they? And when their well placed pals and the public offered their help, they had to play along by gracefully and gratefully accepting the donations. Now it all has snowballed into a farce, over which they arguably haven’t much control. The Macs have to keep going “kissing kiddies” and “launching balloons”.
As for G rooting for K.
Again, I ask you, if your daughter accidentally committed a manslaughter and you were the sole witness, the only one who could land her in prison or let her go free, would you testify against your own daughter or you’d rather keep quiet or lie? That I think was the dilemma G was facing in respect to K.
Now, colomom, the only problem I’ve ever had with your posts – and this line disappointed me, to be honest - was your saying
<quote>
[snip] I just pray that Madeleine is not suffering now.
</quote>
Here I agree with the famous philosopher Daniel Dennett who in his letter “Thank goodness I’m alive” expressed the opinion that <quote> if you truly wish somebody to do well, then would it not be better to take the time and resources devoted to prayer and devote them to doing something that is actually useful? </quote>
And one of my best loved quotes on this forum was what Refugee was saying on his/her message #446 (thread 24)
<quote>
[snip].. but I will say this, just like those who believe in a god, I have a right not to believe in a god! It is a bit unfair that those who believe are allowed to make religious statements, but those who dont are told we must keep quiet and respect the beliefs of the god fearing!
</quote>
I really loved that.
Thank you.
Well I for one try to keep within the law, I don't speed or drink & drive due to the fact that I might kill someone more so than break the law albeit, the law is there for that very reason. It is out of respect for my fellow man/woman, child & even animals that I behave in this manner!
If Gerry & Kate had any respect for their children never mind actual love then they would not be in this position. There is no way that I will excuse anything they have done by sweeping it under the carpet & saying we all would have acted in a similar manner, no we would not! I would:
1. Have loved my children
2. Never left them alone
3. Never sedated them to go boozing with pals or for any other reason.
4. Have considered a family holiday to be just that & included my children not dumped them in a creche.
5. God forbid if any accident had ever happened one of my children I would face the music rather than dump his/her little body in an unmarked grave or worse! If I lost a child my life would be over anyway so it wouldn't matter whether i kept my job or spent time in prison!
We all have choices in everything that we do so to say they had no choice is ludicrous. They chose to act in the callous manner that they did.
If they could not change what they did to originally "lose" Madeleine then they could have chosen to act with dignity afterwards not to try to scam the whole world and they could also have chosen to have a respectful mourning period for her not grin their way through the first weeks!
Gerry could also have chosen to pay tribute to her in his blogs, he did not!
You quote Refugee who states that everyone has the right to express their religious views, which is correct, why then does Colomon's line disappoint you?
Daniel Dennett's quote is well & good but what do you expect people at opposite ends of the world to do other than unite on a forum like this, try to figure out what happened to this little girl & to pray for her if that is what the people in question believe will help, thus showing our respect for her?
Her own mother was onsite & didn't do much in the line of anything constructive to help find her. Instead of physically searching she jogged, had her hair done, bought new clothes & jewellery & spent time at the pool! Again that was a choice that she readily made, I very much doubt that any of the mother's here would have stayed in the apartment on the night that their daughter disappeared, but then I don't believe that she had any motivation to search do you? She had a choice though to go out & at least appear to be a concerned mother, she chose not to bother thus displaying her complete disregard for the opinions of those that she was about to scam!
colomom
08-31-2008, 10:36 AM
Yay!!!! I am so happy to see some intelligent debate and discourse this morning.
I must admit that my statement regarding feynmanadmirer and your first post was rather abrupt and could have been more detailed. I apologize. Also, I truly hope that nobody on our forum for Maddie thinks that I am an evangelist. The reference to prayer is probably more indicative of the intensity of my feeling in that regard. I remember when I first heard about this case and I remember how there were so many references to pedophiles, it absolutely tore me up. As the mother of a young daughter I found myself in a very scary place. I literally cried every day at the thought of what Madeleine might be going through. I have never been a religious person (except for a very difficult time in my life) but I thought that my only choice was to reach out to a higher power that I thought was Madeleine's only chance. I spent alot of time in those early days reaching out to the universe begging and pleading for intervention for that little girl.
I have to admit that when my eyes turned toward the parents and their possible involvement, I was relieved. My friend moongodess really helped me when she told me her "vision" about this case. While the thought of Maddie's parents having killed her and then hidden her body and creating the largest fraud of my lifetime was horrible, the alternative rocked my world.
I can related to your second post feynmanadmirer, especially about how the Mcs got caught up in their deceit and could not easily change their fate. I really believe that in some ways they too are victims in this case. Victims because of their choices but victims nonetheless. Can't say that I feel sorry for them though. I totally believe that what goes around, comes around and when you make your bed you must then lie in it.
Finally, I must say that I really believe that Gerry is the architect and the perpetrator in this case. I can explain further if necessary.
twinkiesmom
08-31-2008, 10:47 AM
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning the behaviour of people who leave their babies unattended.
My saying “it’s not a crime” really meant that most of us are so prone to doing all sorts of offences, and then we try to get away with whatever we do. Hands up who has done something punishable by law, got away with it, and then actually surrendered herself to the authorities to be punished? Say, you exceeded the speed limit and were NOT apprehended by the police, would you go to them voluntarily and pay the fine and surrender your drivers’ license happily informing the officer that you were drunk when driving too?
You're equating felony child neglect with speeding which isn't even a misdemeanor. That is condoning their behavior.
I don't even agree with you that the worst thing they did was acting sanctimonious....next to killing Madeleine (alleged), the worst thing they are likely to have done is profited financially from the crime (fraud) from kindhearted people. I do not know of any other parent of a missing child operating a webstore.
I haven't seen any atheist bashing on this board or on Websleuths in general...have no idea where that came from. Religious people expressing their views or asking for prayer is just their exercising their First Amendment rights...You don't have to join in if you don't believe.
colomom
08-31-2008, 11:17 AM
Real quick then I have to fly.....
I am very pleased to see our recent new posters, including feynmanadmirer, they are intelligent and articulate. They are also willing to express their opinions, even if controversial, without insulting those with differing opinions.
I encourage all of you to not jump to conclusions....yet. It appears to me that we are very much in agreement about the fundamentals of this case. PERFECT for some proper sleuthing.
I will be back later and I would really LOVE to talk about why some believe that Kate is the perp VS Gerry being the perp.
:grouphug:
Barnaby
08-31-2008, 03:51 PM
Quite honestly Colomon I sway between Kate & Gerry killing Madeleine, I just cannot be sure!
Mostly I think it was Gerry but then I feel that surely no mother could act as Kate did i.e. being so controlled emotionally if that was the case & I swing back to thinking that she did it & held it together to save her own skin!
Gerry was certainly controlling of her on camera but that could be for either reason - "Shut up & don't say I did it" or "Shut up & don't land me (both of us) in it"
Kate was also the stressed mother whose diary entries implied that she couldn't cope & who was possibly likely to lash out if Madeleine was being what she would term difficult, while I reckon that Gerry escaped more to golf, tennis or whatever!
All this is of course, based on thinking that Madeleine may have been physically injured by one or other parent and the death was not related to sedation.
CaliKid
08-31-2008, 05:25 PM
Quite honestly Colomon I sway between Kate & Gerry killing Madeleine, I just cannot be sure!
Mostly I think it was Gerry but then I feel that surely no mother could act as Kate did i.e. being so controlled emotionally if that was the case & I swing back to thinking that she did it & held it together to save her own skin!
Gerry was certainly controlling of her on camera but that could be for either reason - "Shut up & don't say I did it" or "Shut up & don't land me (both of us) in it"
Kate was also the stressed mother whose diary entries implied that she couldn't cope & who was possibly likely to lash out if Madeleine was being what she would term difficult, while I reckon that Gerry escaped more to golf, tennis or whatever!
All this is of course, based on thinking that Madeleine may have been physically injured by one or other parent and the death was not related to sedation.
Shaken Baby Syndrome?
Hi, everyone!
*waves*
Texana
08-31-2008, 05:41 PM
Hey Calikid, right back atcha!
As for Kate vs. Gerry...I say neither! It was accident but both felt and were fully responsible--either a sedation issue OR a fatal fall behind the couch.
Both regarded it as a tragic unforeseen "accident" and not a result of Madeleine being left alone.
They are Team McCann in this. Gerry formulated most of the plan with some degree of help from some of the Tapas diners. Not all of them were in on the plan, all of them being close friends of the McCanns support them 100%.
Gerry is a very focused, "that was then, this is now" kind of person. He is much more detached and able to concentrate on details and actions. Kate is much more emotional. The idea of focusing on other "abducted" or missing children across Europe is a kind of penance Kate offered up as a way to deal with the secret burial or disposal of Madeleine's remains.
Tony Bennett
08-31-2008, 06:04 PM
colomom wrote: "I will be back later and I would really LOVE to talk about why some believe that Kate is the perp VS Gerry being the perp".
REPLY: Yes! It seems to me that a significant body of evidence in this case derives from the words, actions and body language of the two McCanns.
Now, I happen to believe that men and women have important differences (yes!) and in particular I think that as a general rule women are better equipped for assessing e.g. body language, social interrelationships, reading visual and verbal clues ferom people etc. - for similar reasons, I tend to believe in the concept of 'feminine intuition'. Incidentally there is scientific back-up for what I am saying.
I think I'm right in saying that the vast majority of posts on the Madeleine McCann General Discussion threads here are from women and I also think that a far greater proportion of women post on Madeleine forums than on most other forums.
My point?
I'd like to see as much explicit discussion as possible - from everyone, men as well come to that - about what it is that makes people think one or other parent is 'more responsible' for Madeleine's death. In the absence of a confession or other forensic evidence, these cues ande clues that people have may be very important. Body language analysis is used very much in police interviews. I'd like the women on this thread in particular to explain their thinking and feeling on the issue of the McCanns' verbal and visual clues and where this takes us.
I would encourage you all to say what you think and why.
Having said that, it has frequently been the case that, for whatever reason, if a child has been killed or abused, one parent will cover for the other.
I would also like to throw in a possible scenario.
Suppose the McCanns (despite their denials) regularly gave Madeleine, and the twins, strong sedatives.
One parent decides, secretly, to treble the dose, and adminsters it without telling the other parent. As a result, the child dies.
In such a situation, could you realistically expect body language and verbal cues to tell you which parent had administered the extra drug dosage?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texana
08-31-2008, 08:23 PM
The reason I think both McCanns were fully aware, and fully responsible, is how well they have acted as a team since Madeleine disappeared. Remember Kate's words--"It had made our marriage stronger. (paraphrased somewhat.) We don't row. We never row."
I think the "never row" was referring to post Madeleine's disappearance, not the whole marriage, since clearly they did indeed, at least in Kate's opinion, "row" enough that she said she slept in the children's room one night.
Gerry brags about Kate's running times on his blog. Kate talks about how they are both trying to do their best "for the twins."
I have not seen any real evidence of separation or disagreement in their body language in the interviews. If anything, they sometimes mirror each other when answering questions.They take turns answering questions, and neither one to any real extent, cuts the other off or interrupts. They are very comfortable letting the "other" speak or answer questions.
He flies off the U.S. to meet with the attorney general after Maddie disappears, she supports his efforts and appearances to raise money for the Fund.
They are united by a common goal and a common guilt.
colomom
08-31-2008, 09:51 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/Ordinateur07-1.gif ~BIG wave to CaliKid~
So, my thoughts about the possibility that Gerry McCann was responsible for Madeleine's death.
Very early own I saw some visual "evidence" of Kate being very angry with Gerry. Look at these pics:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/Brussels3.jpg (cover half her face and look at the right side...eeeekkk)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/nuzzle.jpg
This one being from this video: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Madeleines-Mum-Please-Dont-Scare-Her/Video/200705114162563?lpos=video_7&lid=VIDEO_14162563_Madeleine%2527s%2BMum%253A%2B%2 527Please%2BDon%2527t%2BScare%2BHer%2527
(at 1:04, a flash of anger, it's very subtle but I really picked up on it).
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/KateTicked.jpg
This one is part of a series that you can find here: http://www.exposay.com/kate-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal/v/10561/2/
Look through them, what do you think? It looks like a bit of a "row" to me.
The arm bruise made me think of a very strong grab of her upper arms to try and control hysterics.
Not to mention statistics (from this study:http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/33/4/496.pdf)
Thirty cases of filicide-suicide were identi-
fied, resulting in a sample comprised of 10 (33%)
mothers and 20 (67%) fathers who had committed
filicide-suicide over the time period.
Fathers are much more likely to be the perps.
Finally, an intuit friend of mine told me about her theory and it struck a chord with me, I got chills. It was a very intense experience that continues to this day. I cannot explain it other than to say that there was a "vision" of Gerry losing his temper at bath time and a violent blow being struck and a sudden death.
I can really "see" Gerry telling Kate that it was all her fault and if she had a better handle on the children this never would have happened and that if she did not go along with the plan to cover up the accident/crime that she would lose everything, including her twins.
How's that for feminine intuition TB??
twinkiesmom
08-31-2008, 11:22 PM
My intuition...I do feel Gerry may be a bully. And I do not attribute Kate's anguished looks necessarily to greater responsibility for the crime....It's more likely to me that he has a cold heart while she is honestly anguished.
I don't know what to make of your friend's vision...I would like to know what her belief system is...I would also like to know about Rev, but the mods at the other site shut down discussion on Rev's beliefs.
feynmanadmirer
09-01-2008, 12:55 AM
I completely accept Barnaby’s:
5. God forbid if any accident had ever happened one of my children I would face the music rather than dump his/her little body in an unmarked grave or worse! If I lost a child my life would be over anyway so it wouldn't matter whether i kept my job or spent time in prison!
To me K looks like the guilty party for several reasons, but I will mention only one:
1. Had G killed their child, no mother, I’d think, would have gone so solidly behind her husband. Whereas I can see a man doing this for his spouse. To me it was blatantly obvious in the Ramsey’s case, where the fact that the mother (arguably) was the perp made the team Ramsey so solid.
twinkiesmom
09-01-2008, 12:47 PM
Abused women cover for their significant others every day of the week.
Texana
09-01-2008, 06:22 PM
I think while Kate may feel some repressed anger to Gerry (the sedation was your idea, you insisted the children would be fine and sleeping) the overall impression is more fear than anger, in that expression.
In the picture with the stroller, Kate is looking to the side, I think she's annoyed with photographers.
Barnaby
09-01-2008, 07:59 PM
Hi Calikid :)
Colomon, I agree that in that series of pics it does seem like there is friction between Gerry & Kate. She would appear to be averting her face in what looks like anger & disgust & he is giving her a real dirty look!
Yes in the first pic that you posted Kate is looking at him with anger, I cannot really pick up on what you see in the clip at 1.04.
I think that Gerry has a real mean look at times & is probably the more arrogant of the two & yes the bruise probably does mean he grabbed Kate to control hysterics! I think that Gerry probably was the one & I have always thought that it was a blow of sorts & not a sedation related death!
However, I have to say that in my book one is as guilty as the other, I have no doubt in my mind that neither Gerry nor Kate loved Madeleine, their callous behaviour after the fact proved that. It really is irrelevant, to a point, who dealt the final blow! That child who deserved so very much more got a hugely raw deal when parents were being given out! Even if Gerry did kill Madeleine, Kate is the lowest of the low & an abomination of a mother to agree to fall in with his filty little plan to dispose of her child's body & to perpetrate the scam that they did in the name of their murdered daughter!
Dolphinmomcca
09-01-2008, 08:59 PM
I have a question.....I pop on here from time to time, and Im sorry if this was discussed already, but WHAT would their motive be to only kill Madeleine?? Didnt they try and try to have a baby, and finally had maddy and they were REALLY happy? and if they didnt like being parents to her after all that time trying to have a child, why would they go out and try to have another one (and ended up with twins)
I guess my final question is........what motive do they have?? just curious as to what you all think!
Barnaby
09-01-2008, 09:07 PM
I have a question.....I pop on here from time to time, and Im sorry if this was discussed already, but WHAT would their motive be to only kill Madeleine?? Didnt they try and try to have a baby, and finally had maddy and they were REALLY happy? and if they didnt like being parents to her after all that time trying to have a child, why would they go out and try to have another one (and ended up with twins)
I guess my final question is........what motive do they have?? just curious as to what you all think!
Well, I think that Madeleine was a child with some degree of special needs. They may have tried hard to have a child but perhaps Madeleine wasn't exactly the perfect child that they desired. I don't believe that she was a loved child.
If the death was not premeditated i.e. a blow struck in a fit of temper, then no motive would be neccessary, just a blatant disregard for a child that should have been much loved!
colomom
09-01-2008, 10:26 PM
I have a question.....I pop on here from time to time, and Im sorry if this was discussed already, but WHAT would their motive be to only kill Madeleine?? Didnt they try and try to have a baby, and finally had maddy and they were REALLY happy? and if they didnt like being parents to her after all that time trying to have a child, why would they go out and try to have another one (and ended up with twins)
I guess my final question is........what motive do they have?? just curious as to what you all think!
I also do not believe that this was premeditated. A fit of anger, a lashing out, that resulted in an accidental death.
SleuthMom
09-01-2008, 11:14 PM
Just because a couple went through in vitro doesn't mean much. How many times we read stories about adoptive parents for instance who are abusive towards the same children they promised to love and care for? I think the McCanns really wanted those kids......but they did not want the WORK that involves.
In this case particularly, as a YouTube video that was posted said (paraphrasing).....
The McCanns always wanted a large family.....
Just not in vacations....:rolleyes:
Tony Bennett
09-02-2008, 07:15 AM
Dophinmomcca, a clue to your question comes in a hagiographic piece about the McCanns written on 16 December 2007 by 'The Times' journalist (cough) David James Smith.
Here's the relevant extract:
QUOTE
At about 7.30pm, Kate and Gerry showered and changed and sat down to have a quiet glass of the sauvignon blanc. They were first to the table at the restaurant at 8.35 and spent some minutes talking to a couple from Hertfordshire – two more tennis players – at the next table, who were eating with their young children. As they chatted, Gerry thought how lucky he was, his children asleep nearby, he and Kate free to come and enjoy some adult time at the restaurant and not have to sit with their children, as this couple were.
UNQUOTE
P.S. There is also evidence that Madeleine was a handful and perhaps had disabilities beyond just her coloboma, plus I would have to add that there is at least an element of doubt as to whether Gerry McCann is Madeleine's father
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaliKid
09-02-2008, 12:28 PM
Dophinmomcca, a clue to your question comes in a hagiographic piece about the McCanns written on 16 December 2007 by 'The Times' journalist (cough) David James Smith.
Here's the relevant extract:
QUOTE
At about 7.30pm, Kate and Gerry showered and changed and sat down to have a quiet glass of the sauvignon blanc. They were first to the table at the restaurant at 8.35 and spent some minutes talking to a couple from Hertfordshire – two more tennis players – at the next table, who were eating with their young children. As they chatted, Gerry thought how lucky he was, his children asleep nearby, he and Kate free to come and enjoy some adult time at the restaurant and not have to sit with their children, as this couple were.
And that's the whole problem. For all the time the McCanns spent with Madeleine and the twins on the supposed "family" vacation, they would've been better off leaving them with family back in the UK and going off for a week by themselves.
Barnaby
09-02-2008, 01:01 PM
And that's the whole problem. For all the time the McCanns spent with Madeleine and the twins on the supposed "family" vacation, they would've been better off leaving them with family back in the UK and going off for a week by themselves.
Exactly Calikid but then again I suppose when Madeleine had such monsters for parents, it really was an accident waiting to happen whether in UK or abroad!
Dolphinmomcca
09-02-2008, 03:18 PM
thanks for all your imput, I still dont know what to make of this case.......I truly hope Madeleine is out there alive somewhere, but if she is not, then I hope she is finding peace playing among the Angels.
Texana
09-02-2008, 10:00 PM
I think that Kate (and perhaps Gerry, who I don't believe thinks about things as much as Kate does) wanted children so much, and had them later, and had a very idealized view of how that would all work out.
Maddie, unfortunately, was not a child who fit that idealized dream.
Whatever happened to her that night, was not only due to the fact that the children were left alone or sedated, but due to the fact that Maddie's nature was perhaps not one to be left alone. A child who would give kidnappers "her tuppence's worth" is not a child who would quietly or easily go to sleep waiting for parents when she wanted them with her.
She may have cried so hard she aspirated, she may have fallen and suffered a head injury, she may have suffered a sedation overdose. Only a very few people know that truth.
The McCanns had another set of children, in vitro, that were twins, and these children were of a very different nature than Maddie. Being twins, they could keep each other company and not demand parental attention. They were more easy going and more compliant. They were just far easier children for parents like Kate and Gerry.
Being parents was hard for Kate and Gerry, but unlike parents of earlier generations were either working professionals or upper class wealthy, they were supposed to enjoy profusely time with their children. They came on vacation without a nanny because how would that look? They would not be the loving parents they knew themselves to be--so they tried to have it both ways. They wanted to have some "adult time" but they wanted to be the "responsible parents."
feynmanadmirer
09-03-2008, 01:01 AM
I think that Kate (and perhaps Gerry, who I don't believe thinks about things as much as Kate does) wanted children so much, and had them later, and had a very idealized view of how that would all work out.
Maddie, unfortunately, was not a child who fit that idealized dream.
Whatever happened to her that night, was not only due to the fact that the children were left alone or sedated, but due to the fact that Maddie's nature was perhaps not one to be left alone. A child who would give kidnappers "her tuppence's worth" is not a child who would quietly or easily go to sleep waiting for parents when she wanted them with her.
She may have cried so hard she aspirated, she may have fallen and suffered a head injury, she may have suffered a sedation overdose. Only a very few people know that truth.
The McCanns had another set of children, in vitro, that were twins, and these children were of a very different nature than Maddie. Being twins, they could keep each other company and not demand parental attention. They were more easy going and more compliant. They were just far easier children for parents like Kate and Gerry.
Being parents was hard for Kate and Gerry, but unlike parents of earlier generations were either working professionals or upper class wealthy, they were supposed to enjoy profusely time with their children. They came on vacation without a nanny because how would that look? They would not be the loving parents they knew themselves to be--so they tried to have it both ways. They wanted to have some "adult time" but they wanted to be the "responsible parents."
Looks like the insider's info to me. :)
colomom
09-03-2008, 08:44 AM
Looks like the insider's info to me. :)
I agree, it is amazing how Tex is able to so logically explain the thought processes and feelings that the McCanns may have had. Tex makes a TON of sense.
Great post! :clap:
Tony Bennett
09-03-2008, 08:13 PM
Here's the crucial part of Dianne Webster's statement, just released and translated today:
++++++++++++
Regarding yesterday, she went to the beach with his grandchildren, his son and daughter. They arrived around 15:45 and left around 18:15 and went to tennis where she remained until 19:00. The reporting was then headed to the apartment with her grandchildren and ten minutes later, his son David, joined. With the help of his beautiful son, they gave the children a bath.
They left the apartment around 20:45 and was accompanied by his son and daughter, they went to join the rest of the restaurant group "TAPAS".
First of all, let's attempt a better translation to work from:
QUOTE
"Regarding yesterday [3rd May], I went to the beach with my grandchildren, my son-in-law David and my daughter Fiona. We arrived at the beach around 3.45pm and stayed there about two-and-a-half hours staying until around 6.15pm.
We all then went off to tennis where I remained until 7.00pm.
I then went back to our apartment with my grandchildren. Ten minutes later [7.10pm], David came back.
With the help of my lovely son-in-law, we gave the children a bath.
We all three left our apartment around 8.45pm where we went to join the rest of our group of friends at the 'Tapas bar'".
UNQUOTE
Now for the queries:
1. Did they really stay at the beach from 3.45pm to 6.15pm? No, they were filmed on CCTV at the Paraiso at between 5pm and 6pm (see August News of the World article).
2. No mention of seeing Kate jogging at around 5.20pm as some of the other 'Tapas 9' claim.
3. She is vague about her separation from David and Fiona at 7.00pm. Did all three of them stay on the tennis court until 7.00pm? She does not say so.
4. She says she returns to the flat with her grandchildren. She does not mention Fiona.
5. She says David came back at 7.10pm. Once again she does not mention Fiona.
6. So where was Fiona?
7. She makes no mention of (a) Gerry McCann asking David Payne to visit Kate McCann nor (b) of David going up to the McCanns' apartment at around 6.20pm/6.30pm
8. Her statement does not exclude the possibility that she did not see David between 6.15pm and 7.10pm - nearly an hour. Where exactly was he?
9. This is a very 'spare' statement with very little detail given. I might characterise and describe it as: 'evasive'
++++++++
All I can think of for now
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby
09-03-2008, 08:31 PM
^^^^
Indeed a very evasive statement Tony & one with obvious lies regarding tea in the Paraiso! We have all seen the pic!
The "lovely" son in law seems strange, why would she make a point of saying that?
The thought of David Payne bathing kids makes my skin crawl!
Texana
09-03-2008, 10:18 PM
I agree, it is amazing how Tex is able to so logically explain the thought processes and feelings that the McCanns may have had. Tex makes a TON of sense.
Great post! :clap:
Thanks, and back atcha! :blowkiss:
soyesterday
09-04-2008, 02:28 AM
Well, I think that Madeleine was a child with some degree of special needs. They may have tried hard to have a child but perhaps Madeleine wasn't exactly the perfect child that they desired. I don't believe that she was a loved child.
If the death was not premeditated i.e. a blow struck in a fit of temper, then no motive would be neccessary, just a blatant disregard for a child that should have been much loved!
Hi
This is the first time i 've posted about Maddie, but i've followed her story for so long.
I took a long break from it ,because it was really too upsetting for me to think about.
I hang out on Caylee's forum right now.
I never thought of the idea that Maddie might not have been a "loved" child. My word...what a terrible thought.
I guess i have more to catch up on than i thought.
Did Kate and Gerry actually show signs that they preferred the twins over Maddie?
In your opinion or anyone else's here, do you think their grief they show on tv is actually maybe guilt?
If they did do something to Maddie, God forbid, what do you think it will take for one of them to crack?
Also, are we getting any closer to finding out what really happened to her?
Like i said, i had to stay away from the story for a while, so i'd really really like to know.
Thanks so much.
CaliKid
09-04-2008, 04:35 AM
Hi
~snip~
Did Kate and Gerry actually show signs that they preferred the twins over Maddie?
I don't know that "preferred" is the proper word, but one memory comes to mind and it was filmed. Getting on the plane to go to Portugal, Madeleine tripped on the stairs and neither parent helped her up.
In your opinion or anyone else's here, do you think their grief they show on tv is actually maybe guilt?
I think they fake their grief and hope to God their never found out.
If they did do something to Maddie, God forbid, what do you think it will take for one of them to crack?
At this point I don't think either Kate or Gerry will ever tell the truth, not even if Madeleine's body is located.
Also, are we getting any closer to finding out what really happened to her?
No, but the released documents are opening the case to public scrutiny of the movements of the McCanns and their friends.
Like i said, i had to stay away from the story for a while, so i'd really really like to know.
Thanks so much.
Thanks for joining us.
Barnaby
09-04-2008, 07:34 AM
Hi Soyesterday, nice to see you! Cali has answered your questions very well, I agree with what she says. I would just add, there are rumours that they tried to have Madeleine adopted last year, I don't know how true these are but certainly worrying!
Dutchess
09-04-2008, 08:51 AM
Hi Soyesterday, nice to see you! Cali has answered your questions very well, I agree with what she says. I would just add, there are rumours that they tried to have Madeleine adopted last year, I don't know how true these are but certainly worrying!
What rumours are these? I've never heard that before... Could you elaborate?
Thanks!
Dutchess
soyesterday
09-04-2008, 09:55 AM
Thanks Cali and Barnaby for the welcome and for my answering my questions so quick :)
Rumors of adoption????
That IS worrying like you said!!!!
Niner
09-04-2008, 03:30 PM
did you all see these pictures from colomom's story on Ryan Murphy - in post #27????? it compares Robert Murat and David Payne's pictures - uncanny ALIKE??!!! or what???!!! I've posted the url below - the pictures are on the right side right under the pictures of "Gerry in America"
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2008/08/ryan-murphys-quick-thinking-saved.html
Barnaby
09-04-2008, 07:10 PM
What rumours are these? I've never heard that before... Could you elaborate?
Thanks!
Dutchess
Thanks Cali and Barnaby for the welcome and for my answering my questions so quick :)
Rumors of adoption????
That IS worrying like you said!!!!
This was said in a thread on the 3A's a long time ago, a poster had a relation who was a Social Worker & claimed that the McCanns had tried to have Madeleine adopted last year. I will try to find the link but it is a long time ago, perhaps someone else kept a note of it & would post.
If you have a look at the list of questions that PJ asked & Kate did not answer one asks is it true that they tried to hand the care of Madeleine over to a relative.
Barnaby
09-04-2008, 07:14 PM
did you all see these pictures from colomom's story on Ryan Murphy - in post #27????? it compares Robert Murat and David Payne's pictures - uncanny ALIKE??!!! or what???!!! I've posted the url below - the pictures are on the right side right under the pictures of "Gerry in America"
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2008/08/ryan-murphys-quick-thinking-saved.html
Absolutely Niner, uncanny resemblance! However, I am not 100% convinced yet that Murat did not play some part in this mystery. Remember Gerry did not answer when asked if he knew him?
Or perhaps he is innocent & the Tapas crew fingered him for that exact reason, his resemblance to Payne! Very convenient!
Texana
09-04-2008, 09:47 PM
Absolutely Niner, uncanny resemblance! However, I am not 100% convinced yet that Murat did not play some part in this mystery. Remember Gerry did not answer when asked if he knew him?
Or perhaps he is innocent & the Tapas crew fingered him for that exact reason, his resemblance to Payne! Very convenient!
I think they also picked on him out of sheer prejudice--he's a divorced guy, lives alone with his mother, and has a slightly irregular appearance. Obviously, he's Not One Of Us.
I'm sure in blaming him, they felt perfectly justified in their own shallow way.
CaliKid
09-04-2008, 11:35 PM
IMO, Robert Murat made a very convenient scapegoat. I think the McCanns were thrilled to death when he was charged as an arguido. They probably hoped he'd be arrested, tried and found guilty, taking the questions about Madeleine's disappearance with him.
Salem
09-05-2008, 12:38 AM
Hi Soyesterday, nice to see you! Cali has answered your questions very well, I agree with what she says. I would just add, there are rumours that they tried to have Madeleine adopted last year, I don't know how true these are but certainly worrying!
Ditto to what Barnaby says here! Cali has given the thoughts of many of us here.
Welcome Soyesterday. AND Cali - its good to see you here again! :Banane35:
Salem
seagull65
09-05-2008, 05:21 AM
I have a question.....I pop on here from time to time, and Im sorry if this was discussed already, but WHAT would their motive be to only kill Madeleine?? Didnt they try and try to have a baby, and finally had maddy and they were REALLY happy? and if they didnt like being parents to her after all that time trying to have a child, why would they go out and try to have another one (and ended up with twins)
I guess my final question is........what motive do they have?? just curious as to what you all think!
There wasn't any motive for them to deliberately kill M, but what if it was accidental, as a result of doping for example, or through the simple negligence of leaving her alone for hours at a time night after night, she could have died in an accident in the room. Or what if she accidentally got hold of recreational drugs of theirs and ingested them. In any of these cases, they would have been culpable for negligence or worse.
For me the weirdest point in the case is the way they reportedly left these toddlers alone every evening when they went out, and somehow (a) didn't expect them to wander (or even wake and be distressed), and (b) were not concerned about them getting hurt on their own in the apartment. It just does not make sense.
And in that one interview, it was totally peculiar the way Kate said, "and I know she would never have left the apartment, she just wouldn't ever do that." (That's not an exact quote, but I'm sure you have all heard that audio online before.) Why? Other 3 year olds would wake up and get up and so on. Not to mention the 18 month olds. Because of this the public immediately began asking about doping.
Gerry outright denied to the press that they had given the kids "sedatives", but never said anything about other drugs. Kate said they went straight to sleep when they put them to bed so early, and just slept soundly all night, because they were so tired. Later, there was some mention by someone who knew them, I think it was a relative, that she or he had heard that M "sleepwalked". But that's strange then, that the parents wouldn't be concerned about her getting up. And on the flip side, if they were using that as an excuse to medicate, that is very questionable because it's actually totally normal for 3 year olds to be very restless and get up a lot, often in a sleepwalking way. Medicating for such a thing in such a young child would be very unusual and there would always be a danger of overdosing or harming the child. Anyway, no accusation here, I don't know what happened. She very well could have been abducted as a result of them leaving her alone all the time. The whole thing simply made so little sense, leaving them alone, knowing they wouldn't wander, etc.
seagull65
09-05-2008, 05:41 AM
The "good parents" schtick is just clever marketing strategy to shake a few coins from children and pensioners to keep the fund going. No one with any sense thinks they're good parents.
What gets to me is why anyone thinks these two are any better than Casey Anthony? Both neglected or killed their daughter to party. The McCann's are just cleaner cut and better educated...morally, I don't see much difference.
I have much less sympathy for the McCanns. They were 39 year old professionals, people with multiple degrees. How in the world can they explain leaving toddlers alone for hours night after night, in an apartment that wasn't even within the walled resort complex where they were partying.
Casey Anthony is 22 years old, was on her own for the first time, had no job and no prospects, and could have medical or mental health issues, though this is not known yet. The friends she stayed with said she was a good mother and treated her child well and was affectionate with her. It's hard to figure out what happened there but I have a lot more sympathy for her than the McCanns.
At the time of the Madeleine case, I heard so many people say, "How could 39 year old doctors leave small children alone like that? You only expect something like that to happen with 20-year-old crack addict parents..."
all posts under my name are entirely opinion and not an accusation
seagull65
09-05-2008, 05:47 AM
And when M went missing, the bizarre thing was that storm of PR put out immediately by the McCanns and it was all about themselves, how devoutly religious they were and what wonderful people they supposedly were. It was so weird, it was like, where did all this come from, who cares about any of that? What terrified parents of a missing child would be interested in doing that?
my opinion only
Barnaby
09-05-2008, 07:26 AM
And when M went missing, the bizarre thing was that storm of PR put out immediately by the McCanns and it was all about themselves, how devoutly religious they were and what wonderful people they supposedly were. It was so weird, it was like, where did all this come from, who cares about any of that? What terrified parents of a missing child would be interested in doing that?
my opinion only
Absolutely right Seagull, it has been so appalling how this has been all about them from Day 1 & very very little about Madeleine.
When asked what she would say to Madeleine on TV all Kate could say was "She knows we love her" Hello!! it sounded as if it would stick in her throat to actually say the words!
Barnaby
09-05-2008, 04:22 PM
Looks like the release of the video of the dogs in action is swaying people who thought that the McCanns were innocent
http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=22988&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
CaliKid
09-06-2008, 12:19 AM
Great theories, Seagull.
Hi, Salem. Thanks for the welcome.
Refugee
09-06-2008, 05:29 AM
I've seen this post so many times! someone has it on their PC and pastes it into Anorak and other places. Could be be robot?
Always uses the 'kill' acussation as an extreme winnable starting point!
No one says they deliberately killed her, it was probably a crime of passion if they did, but its most likely that their neglect led to her having an accident.
Refugee
09-06-2008, 07:30 AM
There is still incredible bias in the press and media - look at this report about the cadaver dogs (note it only mentions the blood scent).
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madeleine-McCann-Footage-Released-Of-Praia-Da-Luz-Sniffer-Dog-Search-In-Algarve-Apartment/Article/200809115093618?lpos=World%2BNews_3&lid=ARTICLE_15093618_Madeleine%2BMcCann%253A%2BFoo tage%2BReleased%2BOf%2BPraia%2BDa%2BLuz%2BSniffer% 2BDog%2BSearch%2BIn%2BAlgarve%2BApartment
The final line is the most incredible spin!
And the on the same site.....http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-And-Gerry-Give-First-Interview-Since-Arguido-Status-Lifted-In-Portugal/Article/200809115093944?lid=ARTICLE_15093944_MadeleineMcCa nn:KateAndGerryGiveFirstInterviewSinceArguidoStatu sLiftedInPortugal&lpos=searchresults
'Asked if the couple feared being arrested by Portuguese police over Madeleine's disappearance, he adds: "If you believe what was written in the papers, then of course we feared it.'
..and ...
She had been left sleeping in a holiday apartment while her parents dined with friends in a nearby tapas bar in the resort of Praia da Luz in southern Portugal.
Shouldnt that say 'The McCanns claim....'?
Why these neglectors (and worse probably) are still at large and allowed to communicate through the press and media, I do not know! Makes my blood boil - where's the justice in this!
Refugee
09-06-2008, 07:37 AM
Looks like they are after your money again! The UK Daily Mirror ( a tabloid rag) has a headline 'We've spent a million hunting for Maddy' and they 'vow to keep on searching'
Maybe a bit of physical searching the night she 'went missing' might have helped?!
Barnaby
09-06-2008, 08:58 AM
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_17886.shtml (http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_17886.shtml)
http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23028 (http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23028)
Ex Portuguese police chief claims that Gerry McCann hid the body of Madeleine McCann on the beach
Niner
09-06-2008, 06:50 PM
Absolutely Niner, uncanny resemblance! However, I am not 100% convinced yet that Murat did not play some part in this mystery. Remember Gerry did not answer when asked if he knew him?
Or perhaps he is innocent & the Tapas crew fingered him for that exact reason, his resemblance to Payne! Very convenient!
but... wasn't this the 1st time they (Tapas9) have been to this resort? So how would they know he lived with his mother? and didn't someone else (besides the T9) say they saw Murat there - maybe mistaking him for Payne? just asking!!
Also - yes, Refugee - IF they had searched that night - it might all have been different!
And Barnaby - didn't a witness come forward and SAY they saw Gerry carrying Maddie to the beach earlier that night?? Thought I read that some where!
also - a little late but!!
:Welcome-12-june: to Refugee - always good to have another opinion here!!
Barnaby
09-06-2008, 07:06 PM
but... wasn't this the 1st time they (Tapas9) have been to this resort? So how would they know he lived with his mother? and didn't someone else (besides the T9) say they saw Murat there - maybe mistaking him for Payne? just asking!!
Also - yes, Refugee - IF they had searched that night - it might all have been different!
And Barnaby - didn't a witness come forward and SAY they saw Gerry carrying Maddie to the beach earlier that night?? Thought I read that some where!
also - a little late but!!
:Welcome-12-june: to Refugee - always good to have another opinion here!!
I remember hearing some time ago that I think Oldfield had been there before to suss out accomodation. I hate referring to things when I cannot provide links but it is such a long time ago.
I just thought it very strange that when Gerry was asked if he knew Murat he didn't comment, why not say, No I don't know him, never met him.
A reporter was the first to draw attention to Murat I think, she thought that he was acting suspiciously like Ian Huntley who hung around during the investigation into the Soham Murders (two little girls) in UK some years ago.
The weird thing was that really only the Tapas crew identified Murat as having been there on the night of the 3rd, despite his denials, anyone who actually knew him didn't see him. The fact that they did try to finger him makes me think he's not involved but Gerry's no comment, makes me feel the opposite. This case is just so full of contradictions.
Yes there is an Irishman who claims that he saw Gerry carrying a child to the beach.
http://uk.messages.news.yahoo.com/UK/threadview?m=tm&bn=UKN-UK-Madeleine-McCann&tid=9136&mid=9136&tof=1&so=R&frt=2
Refugee
09-06-2008, 10:49 PM
I remember hearing some time ago that I think Oldfield had been there before to suss out accomodation. I hate referring to things when I cannot provide links but it is such a long time ago.
I just thought it very strange that when Gerry was asked if he knew Murat he didn't comment, why not say, No I don't know him, never met him.
A reporter was the first to draw attention to Murat I think, she thought that he was acting suspiciously like Ian Huntley who hung around during the investigation into the Soham Murders (two little girls) in UK some years ago.
The weird thing was that really only the Tapas crew identified Murat as having been there on the night of the 3rd, despite his denials, anyone who actually knew him didn't see him. The fact that they did try to finger him makes me think he's not involved but Gerry's no comment, makes me feel the opposite. This case is just so full of contradictions.
Yes there is an Irishman who claims that he saw Gerry carrying a child to the beach.
http://uk.messages.news.yahoo.com/UK/threadview?m=tm&bn=UKN-UK-Madeleine-McCann&tid=9136&mid=9136&tof=1&so=R&frt=2
I also saw an interview very early on with a woman who claimed she knew Murat and had been at school with him, then she said she had seen him in the supermarket recently and spoken to him....then she said she had not seen him for years....all very odd. I think she was a resident in PDL, another ex-pat. A suspicious fingering of Murat, I think she was a reporter too.
Yes, it was the Irishman who was then approached by the strange benefactor Kennedy. Notice how the fund is never dipping below 500,000? I dont understand why the UK authorities arent investigating the fund, it seems very 'suspect'.
Also, Kennedy....why is this odd man supporting the McCanns? Is he Tapas 10 or does he have other motives...he looks ... well....loook at his picture ...he looks the type you dont want to leave with your children! Just an opinion! http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/
Barnaby
09-06-2008, 11:41 PM
I also saw an interview very early on with a woman who claimed she knew Murat and had been at school with him, then she said she had seen him in the supermarket recently and spoken to him....then she said she had not seen him for years....all very odd. I think she was a resident in PDL, another ex-pat. A suspicious fingering of Murat, I think she was a reporter too.
Yes, it was the Irishman who was then approached by the strange benefactor Kennedy. Notice how the fund is never dipping below 500,000? I dont understand why the UK authorities arent investigating the fund, it seems very 'suspect'.
Also, Kennedy....why is this odd man supporting the McCanns? Is he Tapas 10 or does he have other motives...he looks ... well....loook at his picture ...he looks the type you dont want to leave with your children! Just an opinion! http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/
I would sure love to know Kennedy's motivation also:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053038/Ill-fund-McCanns-Maddie-vows-double-glazing-tycoon-Kennedy.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053038/Ill-fund-McCanns-Maddie-vows-double-glazing-tycoon-Kennedy.html)
I'll fund the McCanns until they find Maddie, vows double-glazing tycoon Kennedy
Just why is this guy so involved? If he is such a wealthy man then he is no fool, must have some cop on to have made so much money, so why is he ignoring the obvious & still supporting these morons? (polite termination)
No I wouldn't leave him with my kids, don't like the look of him but more importantly I seriously questions his motives & integrity in this matter & yes why is the fund not being investigated & a proper accounting made public, pound for pound?
I am sick of hearing the amount of money that has been wasted on sham detectives, reeks of money laundering!
Edited to add: Interesting thread here:http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23068&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Claims that kennedy's glazing company went into liquidation leaving many people without their windows etc. so what's the deal? He is still a multi millionaire, living in a large house/mansion, some describe it, I haven't seen it. So how did he get away with liquidation? & obviously he is not a principled man! Methinks there is a lot more to his involvement with the Mccanns!
Refugee
09-07-2008, 03:44 PM
I would sure love to know Kennedy's motivation also:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053038/Ill-fund-McCanns-Maddie-vows-double-glazing-tycoon-Kennedy.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053038/Ill-fund-McCanns-Maddie-vows-double-glazing-tycoon-Kennedy.html)
I'll fund the McCanns until they find Maddie, vows double-glazing tycoon Kennedy
Just why is this guy so involved? If he is such a wealthy man then he is no fool, must have some cop on to have made so much money, so why is he ignoring the obvious & still supporting these morons? (polite termination)
No I wouldn't leave him with my kids, don't like the look of him but more importantly I seriously questions his motives & integrity in this matter & yes why is the fund not being investigated & a proper accounting made public, pound for pound?
I am sick of hearing the amount of money that has been wasted on sham detectives, reeks of money laundering!
Edited to add: Interesting thread here:http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23068&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Claims that kennedy's glazing company went into liquidation leaving many people without their windows etc. so what's the deal? He is still a multi millionaire, living in a large house/mansion, some describe it, I haven't seen it. So how did he get away with liquidation? & obviously he is not a principled man! Methinks there is a lot more to his involvement with the Mccanns!
Exactly! Not principled....business after business he buys them out and squeezes the cash out - to hell with the customer. Yet he is suddenly supporting people he never met with thousands? He places his lawyer on the fund board and gets personally involved...it stinks.
Barnaby
09-07-2008, 04:13 PM
Exactly! Not principled....business after business he buys them out and squeezes the cash out - to hell with the customer. Yet he is suddenly supporting people he never met with thousands? He places his lawyer on the fund board and gets personally involved...it stinks.
Yes it stinks, so maybe we should discuss a few scenarios as to why he is being so generous, everyone throw in their theories. I will start with a few:
1. He is Madeleine's biological father?
2. He is fronting for someone else who has a "vested interest" in the case?
3. He had an affair with Kate?
4. McCanns have something on him?
I have more possibilities but better to open it up to other posters if they wish to contribute
Tony Bennett
09-07-2008, 04:26 PM
However, I am not 100% convinced yet that Murat did not play some part in this mystery. Remember Gerry did not answer when asked if he knew him?
+++++++++++++++++=
REPLY: Barnaby, the correct inference from Gerry ducking the question about knowing Robert Murat, and looking distincly ill-at-ease at the question, is: Dr Gerry McCann already knew Robert Murat.
In addition, I think it is admitted that Robert Murat was one member of a distinctly odd 'love triangle'.
Then I look at Robert Murat's conduct re Max Clifford. He accepted a lot of free and no doubt useful advice from publicist Clifford, claiming he had no money. Clifford offered to find him a libel lawyer. Next thing Clifford knows, Murat has found his own libel lawyer and successfully sued for £500,000 (say $875,000). Not that I am a massive fan of Clifford, but he clearly felt 'used' by Murat.
Three of the 'Tapas 9' knew Murat and identified him as being around the Ocean Club after 10.00pm. Were all three inventing this?
There is more than a faint whiff of a 'circle' or 'ring' of people up to no good here. 'Recreational drugs', sex, swinging or worse.
Apart from the slight inelegance of your double negative, Barnaby, I am in full agreement with your reservations about the role of Murat on this murky affair.
Did he know someone with a boat?
Or have a mate with a handy freezer, somewhere out in the country?
Finally, how sure can we be that Gerry McCann had never been to Praia da Luz before? He had his connections out there already, Brian Geraghty for one, who is believed to have been involved in the failed PFI bid for a new Leicestershire hospital, which the 'Tapas 9' Doctors appeared to be deeply involved in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
09-07-2008, 04:52 PM
Yes it stinks, so maybe we should discuss a few scenarios as to why he is being so generous, everyone throw in their theories. I will start with a few:
1. He is Madeleine's biological father?
2. He is fronting for someone else who has a "vested interest" in the case?
3. He had an affair with Kate?
4. McCanns have something on him?
I have more possibilities but better to open it up to other posters if they wish to contribute
I highly suspect that it is not KATE he had (has) the affair going on with. I think Brian and Gerry have the common bond. If you KWIM.
Barnaby
09-07-2008, 05:00 PM
+++++++++++++++++=
REPLY: Barnaby, the correct inference from Gerry ducking the question about knowing Robert Murat, and looking distincly ill-at-ease at the question, is: Dr Gerry McCann already knew Robert Murat.
In addition, I think it is admitted that Robert Murat was one member of a distinctly odd 'love triangle'.
Then I look at Robert Murat's conduct re Max Clifford. He accepted a lot of free and no doubt useful advice from publicist Clifford, claiming he had no money. Clifford offered to find him a libel lawyer. Next thing Clifford knows, Murat has found his own libel lawyer and successfully sued for £500,000 (say $875,000). Not that I am a massive fan of Clifford, but he clearly felt 'used' by Murat.
Three of the 'Tapas 9' knew Murat and identified him as being around the Ocean Club after 10.00pm. Were all three inventing this?
There is more than a faint whiff of a 'circle' or 'ring' of people up to no good here. 'Recreational drugs', sex, swinging or worse.
Apart from the slight inelegance of your double negative, Barnaby, I am in full agreement with your reservations about the role of Murat on this murky affair.
Did he know someone with a boat?
Or have a mate with a handy freezer, somewhere out in the country?
Finally, how sure can we be that Gerry McCann had never been to Praia da Luz before? He had his connections out there already, Brian Geraghty for one, who is believed to have been involved in the failed PFI bid for a new Leicestershire hospital, which the 'Tapas 9' Doctors appeared to be deeply involved in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Tony, I do feel that Gerry knew Murat prior to that stay in PDL as I think, did other members of the Tapas group. I must try to dig up the article regarding Murat's connections in UK.
The "odd love triangle" intrigues me, I hadn't heard this. Would you care to elaborate please?
Gerry could well have been to PDL before.
I agree that Murat used Clifford, I think he is a very astute man!
My views on three of the group identifying Murat at the scene are mixed:
Noone who knew him locally saw him there, strange!
IF he was involved in Madeleines' disappearance in any way, then perhaps the three did not know of that. If he was involved & they did know, why would they try to implicate him? Surely if he was fingered, then they ran the risk of him talking & implicating G&K or all of them?
I tend to think that all of the Tapas group know exactly what happened that night so I am a bit lost as to their motives. We also have the strong resemblance to Payne to consider but noone would find it strange Payne being there that night so why the need for cover?
I apologise for my grammar mistake if indeed it is a mistake, I am usually a stickler for correct grammar being a school teacher by trade, lol! I always scrutinise my posts for typos but I am more than open to correction when wrong, only the McCanns are infallible, particularly in their good care of their children.
Just as a matter of interest, I said that I was not convinced that Murat did not play a part, meaning that I felt he may have done, two negatives do produce a positive & as far as I know, are not wrong when you wish to convey that very idea. I would appreciate your comments.
Back to topic:
I think the mate with the freezer is a good theory but the more people involved in a crime the more chance that someone will talk, I wonder what keeps everyone so very silent on this matter? I reckon that storing a body in a freezer would not come cheap, where did the ready cash come from? Indeed how much would it take to keep the culprit silent when he/she could have shopped them all & claimed a huge reward? A big risk to take!
Regarding the boat, for one I think we can disregard Pennington's tale about the boatman as we are pretty sure that Madeleine's body was in the hire car weeks later but then again did some of the group not have that same car during the holiday?
I do think the body has either been dumped at sea or incinerated in that Pet crematorium.
I have many questions regarding Murat & that is what we are here for to try to find answers.
Barnaby
09-07-2008, 05:05 PM
I highly suspect that it is not KATE he had (has) the affair going on with. I think Brian and Gerry have the common bond. If you KWIM.
Wondering IW, LOL! The mind boggles.
I will not delve deeper than asking do you mean the Freemasons?
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
09-07-2008, 05:14 PM
Wondering IW, LOL! The mind boggles.
I will not delve deeper than asking do you mean the Freemasons?
:chicken: Nope...Lower. :silenced:;)
Barnaby
09-07-2008, 05:30 PM
:chicken: Nope...Lower. :silenced:;)
mmmmmmm!!!!
colomom
09-07-2008, 09:27 PM
Maybe Kennedy was the 10th Tapas....maybe he was there that night. Maybe he has something to hide.
IW....ewwwwwww.
I have always believed that RM was more involved that anyone admitted.
Barnaby
09-07-2008, 10:42 PM
Maybe Kennedy was the 10th Tapas....maybe he was there that night. Maybe he has something to hide.
IW....ewwwwwww.
I have always believed that RM was more involved that anyone admitted.
Maybe Gerry has something big on Kennedy, hence the - I will support for life thing! - I wouldn't put anything past this unscrupulous bunch!
There is a whole lot more to this than any of us can imagine, I firmly believe that!
Perhaps he was the Tapas 10th so just when & why he flew in & then out so quickly, would be very interesting! Doubt that anyone will volunteer this information any time soon though!
I too believe that Murat has an involvement but hell he just got compensation for his troubles! Madeleine sure has been a moneyspinner for many in one way or another!
Tony Bennett
09-08-2008, 07:11 AM
From the police report:
"The soft toy was found on the bed where Maddie allegedly slept on the night that she went missing, but on the bed, no cadaver odour was detected, contrary to the soft toy. This fact led the Polícia Judiciária to believe that the crime scene was manipulated in order to better justify the abduction theory that is sustained by the McCanns and their friends".
So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.
Incidentally I am not sure about the alleged bloodspots around that window in the children's room, I don't think Keela detected these, or did she? I thought she only detected blood at the foot of the wall by the window? - where the floor tiles adjoined the wall. I am open to correction.
What can we infer from all that?
It has to be guesswork, but here are two possible scenarios that I think fit the known cadavar/blood-hound facts:
1. Madeleine was trying to get out of the window, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. This happened when the parents were not in the apartment (e.g. the night of 2nd/3rd May). The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment
OR
2. Madeleine was assaulted in a rage by trying to get out of the window, knocked against the wall, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment.
I tend to favour alternative 1.
Would be very interested to hear other opinions on whether either (1) or (2) fits the facts - or whether there is perhaps a better explanation that fits the facts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bennett
09-08-2008, 07:20 AM
Barnaby, you wrote:
"I apologise for my grammar mistake if indeed it is a mistake, I am usually a stickler for correct grammar being a school teacher by trade, lol! I always scrutinise my posts for typos but I am more than open to correction when wrong, only the McCanns are infallible, particularly in their good care of their children.
Just as a matter of interest, I said that I was not convinced that Murat did not play a part, meaning that I felt he may have done, two negatives do produce a positive & as far as I know, are not wrong when you wish to convey that very idea. I would appreciate your comments".
REPLY:
A double negative is not incorrect. There, see, another double negative! It conveys meaning accurately, but not necessarily in the most succinct or elegant manner.
IMO
"I feel Murat may have played a part..."
is (a) more succinct and (b) more elegant than
"I am not convinced that Murat did not play a part...".
I enjoy your posts, you understand what has really gone on in this case, and thanks for raising the possibility of Murat's involvement on the forum.
Please feel free to comment on any posts of mine which may be less than succinct, or inelegant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby
09-08-2008, 09:44 AM
From the police report:
"The soft toy was found on the bed where Maddie allegedly slept on the night that she went missing, but on the bed, no cadaver odour was detected, contrary to the soft toy. This fact led the Polícia Judiciária to believe that the crime scene was manipulated in order to better justify the abduction theory that is sustained by the McCanns and their friends".
So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.
Incidentally I am not sure about the alleged bloodspots around that window in the children's room, I don't think Keela detected these, or did she? I thought she only detected blood at the foot of the wall by the window? - where the floor tiles adjoined the wall. I am open to correction.
What can we infer from all that?
It has to be guesswork, but here are two possible scenarios that I think fit the known cadavar/blood-hound facts:
1. Madeleine was trying to get out of the window, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. This happened when the parents were not in the apartment (e.g. the night of 2nd/3rd May). The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment
OR
2. Madeleine was assaulted in a rage by trying to get out of the window, knocked against the wall, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment.
I tend to favour alternative 1.
Would be very interested to hear other opinions on whether either (1) or (2) fits the facts - or whether there is perhaps a better explanation that fits the facts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony, I don't think that Keela detected blood in the children's room either but I am also open to correction.
I think that if either of your theories are correct then the incident had to have happened on the 2nd May. If it happened on the evening of May 3rd then I doubt that there would have been enough time to put their elaborate plan into action.
Barnaby
09-08-2008, 09:52 AM
Barnaby, you wrote:
"I apologise for my grammar mistake if indeed it is a mistake, I am usually a stickler for correct grammar being a school teacher by trade, lol! I always scrutinise my posts for typos but I am more than open to correction when wrong, only the McCanns are infallible, particularly in their good care of their children.
Just as a matter of interest, I said that I was not convinced that Murat did not play a part, meaning that I felt he may have done, two negatives do produce a positive & as far as I know, are not wrong when you wish to convey that very idea. I would appreciate your comments".
REPLY:
A double negative is not incorrect. There, see, another double negative! It conveys meaning accurately, but not necessarily in the most succinct or elegant manner.
IMO
"I feel Murat may have played a part..."
is (a) more succinct and (b) more elegant than
"I am not convinced that Murat did not play a part...".
I enjoy your posts, you understand what has really gone on in this case, and thanks for raising the possibility of Murat's involvement on the forum.
Please feel free to comment on any posts of mine which may be less than succinct, or inelegant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point taken Tony :) sometimes I like the sound of my own voice :)
Welcome about Murat, I was never happy with him!
I also enjoy your posts, I think they are always succint & elegant. Like others here you have a great understanding of the case & very interesting theories.
It is a pleasure to be part of this community & to engage in intelligent debate about the case albeit, a real tragedy that we ever needed to come together in the first place!
Tony Bennett
09-08-2008, 02:57 PM
****CORRECTION***
I wrote this earlier [Post 225]:
So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.
++++
I should have written this:
So, Madeleine's body lay both in the living room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.
++++
As it happens it makes very little difference to the point I was making
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texana
09-08-2008, 08:51 PM
****CORRECTION***
I wrote this earlier [Post 225]:
So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.
++++
I should have written this:
So, Madeleine's body lay both in the living room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.
++++
As it happens it makes very little difference to the point I was making
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think your scenario of Madeleine falling or being injured near the window on May 2nd is very plausible and more than likely, given that it is a) backed up by the physical evidence and the dog's reaction b) explains why the cadaver scent was developed enough for the dog to alert easily and readily upon entering apartment and c) is a very likely accident--a small child, near a window, left alone, is a very realistic recipe for a fatal head injury.
colomom
09-08-2008, 09:42 PM
I think your scenario of Madeleine falling or being injured near the window on May 2nd is very plausible and more than likely, given that it is a) backed up by the physical evidence and the dog's reaction b) explains why the cadaver scent was developed enough for the dog to alert easily and readily upon entering apartment and c) is a very likely accident--a small child, near a window, left alone, is a very realistic recipe for a fatal head injury.
The problem that I have with this scenario is the resulting cover-up that we have talked about.
Why would they have fabricated such an elaborate ruse to cover up an accident? The whole story they have told has insisted that we do not judge them because "it was like dining in the garden" or that they were "doing their own baby-listening service". If it was an accident they could use these same excuses and probably avoid persecution. So why the HUGE lie?
The only reason I can think of would be to cover up death by sedation which could probably still be explained by an attempt to "help" Maddie sleep and/or ignorance on the dosage. Still an accident, involuntary. But this happening in a foreign country with unknown consequences? Would that be enough to facilitate such a reaction?
OR...a violent death. One with broken bones and bruises that could not be explained as an accident. Coupled with sedation and you could very well be looking at a very scary consequence. One that would jeopardize all their lives for a very long time.
So, I return to a violent incident with blunt force trauma resulting in blood spatter on the wall.
I am still in the same place...
Texana
09-09-2008, 12:01 AM
The problem that I have with this scenario is the resulting cover-up that we have talked about.
Why would they have fabricated such an elaborate ruse to cover up an accident? The whole story they have told has insisted that we do not judge them because "it was like dining in the garden" or that they were "doing their own baby-listening service". If it was an accident they could use these same excuses and probably avoid persecution. So why the HUGE lie?
The only reason I can think of would be to cover up death by sedation which could probably still be explained by an attempt to "help" Maddie sleep and/or ignorance on the dosage. Still an accident, involuntary. But this happening in a foreign country with unknown consequences? Would that be enough to facilitate such a reaction?
OR...a violent death. One with broken bones and bruises that could not be explained as an accident. Coupled with sedation and you could very well be looking at a very scary consequence. One that would jeopardize all their lives for a very long time.
So, I return to a violent incident with blunt force trauma resulting in blood spatter on the wall.
I am still in the same place...
I think the accidental death would be a reason to cover up, simply because they wouldn't believe it of someone else, that it was accidental. I think if it was a fall, because they were gone, the fall was fatal. Had they been present, it either wouldn't have happened, or they would known to get some head trauma care. I think if it was a fall, they might very well have not even realized it until the early morning hours--the most horrifying scenario and one that would demand a cover up, in their minds.
If a death by a sedation overdose or reaction, they would have the same response: cover up because they would react as professionals. How could this happen, how could you do this--ergo, they must cover up simply because they know how the medical professionals in another country would react.
I wouldn't totally rule out a violent blunt force kind of trauma, just that the other scenarios are easier to envision.
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 04:48 AM
The problem that I have with this scenario is the resulting cover-up that we have talked about.
Why would they have fabricated such an elaborate ruse to cover up an accident? The whole story they have told has insisted that we do not judge them because "it was like dining in the garden" or that they were "doing their own baby-listening service". If it was an accident they could use these same excuses and probably avoid persecution. So why the HUGE lie? The only reason I can think of would be to cover up death by sedation which could probably still be explained by an attempt to "help" Maddie sleep and/or ignorance on the dosage. Still an accident, involuntary. But this happening in a foreign country with unknown consequences? Would that be enough to facilitate such a reaction?
OR...a violent death. One with broken bones and bruises that could not be explained as an accident. Coupled with sedation and you could very well be looking at a very scary consequence. One that would jeopardize all their lives for a very long time.
So, I return to a violent incident with blunt force trauma resulting in blood spatter on the wall. I am still in the same place...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
REPLY: I don't rule out the 'violent incident' theory, certainly NOT if there are several spatters of MADELEINE's blood on the walls. But there is doubt as to whether it is Madeleine's blood, isn't there?
But to return to the accidental fall theory.
First, the McCanns would have to explain what they weren't there - a problem.
Second, if she was regularly sedated, and possibly had been having extra sedation whiulst on holiday, that would be a big problem if there had been a full autopsy.
But third - and here colomom we must remember the key point that cadaverine is usually only emitted a full two hours after a death - what if by the time Madeleine's body was discovered by the McCanns, her body had already been dead for a few hours and rigor mortis had set in?
That would have been an insuperable problem for them. No way they could explain that if they called an ambulance or...a Doctor. Their absence from their apartment for two hours or maybe much more would be bound to lead them to conclude that, if there were an autopsy, they would be highly vulnerable to a charge of causing death by negligent manslaughter. The police would proably have been on the scene within 30 minutes of a Doctor examining Madeleiene's lifeless and rigid body.
There would have been frantic calls to the other Tapas 9 Doctors and agreement swiftly reached to cover up Madeleine's death.
IMO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby
09-09-2008, 08:06 AM
Can we take these points as facts?
1. Madeleine cried until late on night of May 2nd?
2. Madeleine's bed had not been slept in on the night of May 3rd leading us to believe that she was never even placed in it, sedated or otherwise?
Therefore if she died before the Tapas dinner on May 3rd as point 2 would appear to indicate, it was probably not due to sedation, imo!
If the child was very distressed & cried for several hours on the night of May 2nd, I think that she would have been "cried out" & exhausted & would probably have slept well after her parents returned. Even if sedation had been administered at that point, it would probably have done it's job as the child would have been so very tired so I do not think that she would have got up again that night to wander around, risking an accident. I am sure most here have experienced the exhaustion that comes after distress & crying.
I believe that Madeleine died by violence either late on the night of May 2nd (bad temper due to her crying having disturbed her parent's evening & embarrassed them) or sometime during the day of May 3rd.
The McCanns do not release anything that might make them look bad yet they admitted that Madeleine had asked why they didnt come when she was crying. I believe that Madeleine asked this on the night of May 2nd not the next morning & the only reason that they said it was to make people believe that she was alive on May 3rd.
That very question may well have cost her her life, either parent, angry, embarrassed & very drunk may well have lashed out at what they would perceive to be her audacity in questioning their parenting!
twinkiesmom
09-09-2008, 08:53 AM
I think if it was a violent death, it happened in the bath tub. I wonder if PJ tested the sink drain?
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
09-09-2008, 09:07 AM
How do we know it was actually Madeleine that cried until late in the evening of May 2nd? In the McCanns statement they said Madeleine asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying out for them...I've always wondered if it was actually Amelie and Sean crying out because Madeleine was hurt and bleeding/not responding. I realize they were young, but still kids at that age associate blood with pain. When my siblings and I were very young, we all sounded a like, (even my brother). Grandma would call and never could figure out which one of us she was talking to.
Anyway, I've always though the McCanns leaked and smeared that info to make us beleive Madeleine was still with us that night.
at least three people have gone on record to say that Madeline was at the creche on the 3rd
Pennington , Cat Baker and the cook . This is taken from the official PJ DVD that was issued to bonide journalists - being translated by two independent organisations Efant Kidnap and also the portugese journalist Paulo Reis .
Maddy was picked up by Kate from the creche at 5.30ish on the 3rd - again this is in the police statement -
I know conspiracy theores are popular , but whatever happened to maddy happened sometime after the 5.30 on the 3rd IMO
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 10:27 AM
At least three people have gone on record to say that Madeleine [spelling corrected - T.B.] was at the creche on the 3rd:
Pennington, Catriona Baker and the cook. This is taken from the official PJ DVD that was issued to bona fide journalists - being translated by two independent organisations Enfants Kidnappes and also the Portugese journalist Paulo Reis. Maddy was picked up by Kate from the creche at 5.30ish on the 3rd - again this is in the police statement...
REPLY:
Pennington has contradicted herself about which members of the family she saw when that day. Her story in turn contradicts other accounts by some members of the Tapas 9 including the McCanns e.g. Kate seen jogging at 5.20pm by some of the 'Tapas'. Catriona Baker's statements I thought were very vague. As far as I'm aware proper records of which children attended when were not kept - have they been produced yet?
The cook is a new one on me. Who is the cook and what does s/he say?
If you could refer me to the source, gord, I'd be grateful.
You'll recall that earlier on this forum I've published a list of each of the 8 claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine on 3rd May and there were grave doubts about each and every one of them.
The cook's 'sighting' would be the 9th and I would like to know exactly what was said by the cook
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 10:35 AM
How do we know it was actually Madeleine that cried until late in the evening of May 2nd? In the McCanns' statement they said Madeleine asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying out for them...I've always wondered if it was actually Amelie and Sean crying out because Madeleine was hurt and bleeding/not responding. I realize they were young, but still kids at that age associate blood with pain...Anyway, I've always thought the McCanns leaked and smeared that info to make us believe Madeleine was still with us that night.
REPLY: I agree that the above scenario is more than possible. The McCanns' claim about the 'happy breakfast' with Madeleine cheerfully asking why her Mum and Dad weren't there last night and then went skipping away happily never had the 'ring of truth' about it; it was manifestly IMO a self-serving statement and one that was only made when Pamela Fenn's evidence was about to be made public. Amelie and Sean crying over a dying or dead Madeleine - what a truly awful thought, but by no means impossible from what we know
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY:
Pennington has contradicted herself about which members of the family she saw when that day. Her story in turn contradicts other accounts by some members of the Tapas 9 including the McCanns e.g. Kate seen jogging at 5.20pm by some of the 'Tapas'. Catriona Baker's statements I thought were very vague. As far as I'm aware proper records of which children attended when were not kept - have they been produced yet?
The cook is a new one on me. Who is the cook and what does s/he say?
If you could refer me to the source, gord, I'd be grateful.
You'll recall that earlier on this forum I've published a list of each of the 8 claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine on 3rd May and there were grave doubts about each and every one of them.
The cook's 'sighting' would be the 9th and I would like to know exactly what was said by the cook
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB statement as given to the PJ - translated from
http://www.kidnapping.be/affairemccann07s/index.html
This was from the DVD - issued to to journalists.
CATRIONA B. ( doesnt seem that vague )
In our informal conversation with Catriona Trease Sisile B., also known as CAT, the latter reports:
1. That she arrived on March 21st 2007 and that she plans to return to the UK on November 7th 2007.
2. That she has worked with Madeleine since Sunday April 29th 2007, daily until yesterday and that she always works the same hours.
3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10am. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her.
4. That is was her mother, Kate, who picked her up at 12.45pm.
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 2.50pm and picked her up at 5.30pm.
6. That in the same room as Madeleine, there were 6 other children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (including Madeleine)
7. That she did not see any strangers in the complex during that time.
8. That on the first day, Madeleine was shy. On the following days she was more self-possessed and uninhibited. Yesterday she was joyful. (Editor's note: verbatim from the case file)
9. That she never left Madeleine, keeping her under visual supervision at all times when she was her responsibility.
10. That, over the days, she noticed no change in the behaviour of the child's parents.
11. That she has noticed no abnormal behaviour towards this family.
12. That Madeleine has not reported to her having had contact or conversations with anyone in recent days, which would possibly be suspicious.
STACEY P.
During our informal interview with Stacey P., the latter reports:
1. That it is she and her colleague, Shinead, who usually work with the twins.
2. That yesterday, it was the informant, Stacey, who worked with the twins, her colleague was on her day off.
3. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30am and that the mother picked them up at 12.30pm.
4. That it was the father, Gerald, who dropped them off at 2.30pm and that it was the mother, Kate, who came to fetch them at 5.30pm.
5. That she did not see any strangers in the surrounding area.
6. That the behaviour of the parents was always perfectly normal.
7. That she arrived in Portugal on March 18th and that she returns to the UK on November 7th next.
It is understood that it was not possible to hear the rest of the young girls, and notably the one called Shinead, because most of them were absent and we will set up other priority work to that purpose.
The statement from the cook - published by Paulo Reis on his blog on the 3 A's - again taken from the DVD
Maria M. J., a cooker at Tapas restaurant, saw Madeleine at 4:30 pm, May 3, 2007, in the Tapas restaurant, having diner ("high tea") with the other children from the creches. Children had "high tea" or diner, every day, in a specific area reserved for it, in the Tapas restaurant. PJ questioned her on May 6, 2007, and the statement is in the DVD files.
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 10:50 AM
Can we take these points as facts?
1. Madeleine cried until late on night of May 2nd?
2. Madeleine's bed had not been slept in on the night of May 3rd leading us to believe that she was never even placed in it, sedated or otherwise?
Therefore if she died before the Tapas dinner on May 3rd as point 2 would appear to indicate, it was probably not due to sedation, imo!
If the child was very distressed & cried for several hours on the night of May 2nd, I think that she would have been "cried out" & exhausted & would probably have slept well after her parents returned. Even if sedation had been administered at that point, it would probably have done it's job as the child would have been so very tired so I do not think that she would have got up again that night to wander around, risking an accident. I am sure most here have experienced the exhaustion that comes after distress & crying.
I believe that Madeleine died by violence either late on the night of May 2nd (bad temper due to her crying having disturbed her parents' evening & embarrassed them) or sometime during the day of May 3rd.
The McCanns do not release anything that might make them look bad yet they admitted that Madeleine had asked why they didn't come when she was crying. I believe that Madeleine asked this on the night of May 2nd not the next morning & the only reason that they said it was to make people believe that she was alive on May 3rd. That very question may well have cost her her life, either parent, angry, embarrassed & very drunk may well have lashed out at what they would perceive to be her audacity in questioning their parenting!
REPLY: Barnaby, no, I don't think we can take your first point as fact at all. Madeleine crying on the night of 2nd/3rd May would fit my theory BUT Pamela Fenn's evidence surely was that the 75 minites' crying she heard (from 10.30pm to 11.45pm) was on Tuesday 1 May. Yes?
Fact 2 I go along with. She was never in that bed that night.
You wrote: "I believe that Madeleine died by violence either late on the night of May 2nd (bad temper due to her crying having disturbed her parent's evening & embarrassed them) or sometime during the day of May 3rd".
RESPONSE: A key problem I have with the 'act of violence' theory is why all the 'Tapas 9' seem to have rallied round to support the bogus abduction story and maintained their 'Pact of Silence'? Why, for goodness sake, if it was Kate or Gerry who lost their temper?
The notion that all the children were being given a strong sedative to make them sleep would however seem to bind the 'Tapas 9' together with a shameful secret they would all wish to hide.
I suppose it is also conceivable that there WAS an act of violence but that the McCanns told their 'Tapas' friends that she died from the sedatives.
I would add that for the McCanns to admit, as recently they have done, that Madeleine and Sean were crying on the night of 2nd/3rd May (as well as on 1 May as per Pamela Fenn), there must surely be a witness, possibly someone who we do not yet know of - who testifies to having heard the children crying on 2nd/3rd May.
iNTERESTEDWOMAN's suggestion that it was Sean and AMELIE who were crying that night (2nd/3rd), possibly because Madeleine was in serious trouble, is worthy of serious consideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 10:58 AM
gord, thanks very much for your very prompt response. Did you notice this:
CATRIONA BAKER:
Point 5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 2.50pm and picked her up at 5.30pm.
STACEY P [NOTE: is this meant to be Charlotte Pennington? - it's not at all clear]:
Point 4. That it was the father, Gerald, who dropped them off at 2.30pm and that it was the mother, Kate, who came to fetch them at 5.30pm.
Do you back Catriona's version?
Or Stacey/Charlotte's?
Or are they both mistaken?
Or doesn't it really matter that much either way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
twinkiesmom
09-09-2008, 10:58 AM
A creche worker would have noticed if one child was missing, even if Madeleine was in another group.
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 11:03 AM
gord, if you are kind enough to let us have your thoughts on my query in post 243, could you also shed light on this contradiction?
CATRIONA BAKER:
Point 3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10am. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her.
STACEY P/CHARLOTTE PENNINGTON:
Point 3: That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30am.
A 20-minute time difference and one witness saying they both brought Madeleine and the other contradicting that and saying it was only Kate.
How should we explain this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
gord, thanks very much for your very prompt response. Did you notice this:
CATRIONA BAKER:
Point 5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 2.50pm and picked her up at 5.30pm.
STACEY P [NOTE: is this meant to be Charlotte Pennington? - it's not at all clear]:
Point 4. That it was the father, Gerald, who dropped them off at 2.30pm and that it was the mother, Kate, who came to fetch them at 5.30pm.
Do you back Catriona's version?
Or Stacey/Charlotte's?
Or are they both mistaken?
Or doesn't it really matter that much either way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stacey P was looking after the twins in the creche next door - Cat B was mddies key worker - Stacey was talking about the twins being dropped off - quite simple Maddy was in the bigger kids section - pretty sure Stacey P is charlotte - so no need to choose between them - both correct
Cat B has been quite specific and consistent .
It easy to disect times and look at the minutae to discredit things - but again we have 3 seperate witnesses who all are on record at seeing Madeleine alive on the 3rd -
gord, if you are kind enough to let us have your thoughts on my query in post 243, could you also shed light on this contradiction?
CATRIONA BAKER:
Point 3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10am. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her.
STACEY P/CHARLOTTE PENNINGTON:
Point 3: That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30am.
A 20-minute time difference and one witness saying they both brought Madeleine and the other contradicting that and saying it was only Kate.
How should we explain this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
again Tony - Cat B was in a differenrt creche to Stacey P -
Cat B looking after Maddy
Stacey P looking after the twins
doesnt seem strange that they might have been dropped off at slightly different times
I only quoted the Stacey P statement as it was part of the detail that had been translated by enfant kidnap
I put the question back at you - do you think Cat B is lying ?
Stacey P is not charlotte P - she is another nanny whom looked after the twins - sorry for the confusion
here is the quote to support that
We note that none of these young girls lives at the complex, but quite near and that Catriona B. was responsible for Madeleine during the day yesterday. Stacey P. was the staff member for the McCann twins. It is evident that it is always the same young woman who works with the same child. The latest arrivals in Portugal are Sarah W. and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007. The informant, responsible for coordination, split the children up between several young girls, taking care that each child was unknown to each young girl. The informant noticed nothing abnormal up to yesterday and that no one was absent from work except those who were on their day off.
stacey P is Stacey Portz who worked in the baby ( twins club )
Just for the record here is Charlottes P statement
Pennigton just said to PJ she talked with Madeleine on the afternoon of May 3, because her working place, the "Baby Club" is next to the "Mini Club", the creche were Madeleine was. She does not say she went to A5 apartment, she was working the night shift (7:35/11:00 pm) with other colleagues, in the creche where parents could leave the kids, while having diner. After the alarm was raised, she called her supervisor and followed the Ocean Club instructions for the case of a missing child - went with other colleagues, looking around Ocean Club.
She helped with the search until 1:30 am May 4, then she went home. She said she never went to A5 apartment, just passed on the street behind it, near the car park, she saw a lot of people there, but no mention to seeing Kate and Gerry.
Statement given to PJ on May 7, 2007.
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 11:55 AM
gord, I respond to your question: "I put the question back at you - do you think Cat B is lying?" - I have also seen your two subsequent posts.
There has been so much to consider in the way of new evidence being released that I have not been able to fully analyse what the nannies say, which potentially provides proof that Madeleine was alive and seen by others at least until 5.30pm or beyond.
From what I have seen of Charlotte Pennington's statements so far, she has given different testimony on different occasions about what happened on 3rd May to the extent I would not rely on any statement of hers.
You quoted Charlotte Pennington as saying: "She said she never went to A5 apartment, just passed on the street behind it, near the car park, she saw a lot of people there..." But - please correct me if I am badly mistaken - did I not read elsewhere that she was the first on the scene in Apartment A5?
As to Catriona Baker's statements, I'll give you a short answer. Yes, I believe she may be lying about having seen Madeleine during 3rd May
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bennett
09-09-2008, 12:01 PM
gord: It easy to dissect times and look at the minutiae to discredit things - but again we have 3 seperate witnesses who all are on record at seeing Madeleine alive on the 3rd..."
REPLY: Bringing you back to my question:
One nanny says 'Mother brought her at 2.30pm'
The other says 'Father brought her at 2.50pm'.
Is that really just a tiny inconsistency that can be brushed aside?
Surely we are entitled to query who is right here?
If Madeleine was brought back to the kid's club, it was EITHER Kate OR Gerry.
Bringing her back at 2.50pm would have been 20 minutes 'late'. How come the other nanny didn't notice that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0