McCanns launch new appeal

[Jayelles]

Not buying it Isabella.

Now if you were talking about the hate sites you seem to be fond of that would be different.

Yes April, I am from the UK and I can say quite categorically that I don't know any of these people who despise the McCanns so. Clearly Isabella and I move in different circles. The people I have spoken with about the case have nothing but a great sense of pity for them.

I know plenty of people who have been disgusted by the media reporting about the case - but only from the POV of the scandalous lies which were printed under the guise of "news".

I know plenty of people who feel angry that they left their children, but they all seem capable of separating the leaving of the children with Madeleines' subsequent disappearance. Phew.

I think of other cases where bad parenting decisions led to the (known) death of the child and I don't ever remember reading hate being posted against these parents. No-one ever attacked Denise Bulger for turning her back on her two year old Jamie in a shopping mall and I've never seen hatred being poured upon any of the parents whose children drowned in garden ponds when they were left unattended. The McCanns may have been ill-advised to leave their children alone in an apartment, but there is nothing to show that they did so maliciously and with knowledge that they were in any danger.

I always cringe when I see parents not holding the hands of their little children near a busy road, but it's the parents who suffer most when their children come to harm.

 

[Isabella]

So you don't believe that Madeleine could have been abducted, but you believe she might have turned into a butterfly?????

I said her spirit. For the record i know i wasnt the only one who thought that at the time.

And no i have not seen one SCRAP of evidence to determine a kidnap.

 

[Isabella]

Yes April, I am from the UK and I can say quite categorically that I don't know any of these people who despise the McCanns so. Clearly Isabella and I move in different circles. The people I have spoken with about the case have nothing but a great sense of pity for them.

I know plenty of people who have been disgusted by the media reporting about the case - but only from the POV of the scandalous lies which were printed under the guise of "news".

I know plenty of people who feel angry that they left their children, but they all seem capable of separating the leaving of the children with Madeleines' subsequent disappearance. Phew.

I think of other cases where bad parenting decisions led to the (known) death of the child and I don't ever remember reading hate being posted against these parents. No-one ever attacked Denise Bulger for turning her back on her two year old Jamie in a shopping mall and I've never seen hatred being poured upon any of the parents whose children drowned in garden ponds when they were left unattended. The McCanns may have been ill-advised to leave their children alone in an apartment, but there is nothing to show that they did so maliciously and with knowledge that they were in any danger.

I always cringe when I see parents not holding the hands of their little children near a busy road, but it's the parents who suffer most when their children come to harm.

Oh please theres a world of difference between Denise Bulger and yet stick up for the McCanns?

There is a world of difference between what happened with Jamie Bulger and kids that fall into ponds and what the McCanns did. Denise was NOT negligent..the McCanns WERE.

And yes we must talk to different people or ..they only read the same publications as you..that obviously dont tell the whole truth if you didnt even know about the text messages.

But then for me its not just who i talk to...its what said on a nationwide scale..ie the poll in the daily where over 3/4 thought the McCanns knew what happened. Its the 100s who wrote on the site the other day voicing there feelings..

And Jade Goody - i fail to see what a woman who died of cancer has to do with the McCanns - a woman who IMO would have done ANYTHING to protect her kids. MOO

 

[Jayelles]

Oh please theres a world of difference between Denise Bulger and yet stick up for the McCanns?

There is a world of difference between what happened with Jamie Bulger and kids that fall into ponds and what the McCanns did. Denise was NOT negligent..the McCanns WERE.

And yes we must talk to different people or ..they only read the same publications as you..that obviously dont tell the whole truth if you didnt even know about the text messages.

But then for me its not just who i talk to...its what said on a nationwide scale..ie the poll in the daily where over 3/4 thought the McCanns knew what happened. Its the 100s who wrote on the site the other day voicing there feelings..

And Jade Goody - i fail to see what a woman who died of cancer has to do with the McCanns - a woman who IMO would have done ANYTHING to protect her kids. MOO

YOu haven't answered my question. I'll ask it one more time.

Do you believe that the variations in the stories which came out about Jade Goody were down to the reporting or do you think they were all accurate and that she couldn't keep her story straight? This question has everything to do with your claim that the friends and family of Madeleine McCann "couldn't keep their stories straight".

 

[Jayelles]

OK, I'll address these text mesasges which you have failed to provide a source for. You'll excuse me if I don't accept your word that you read about it somewhere, I have followed the Ramsey case for years and there are several notorious characters who continually make unsubstantiated claims and who play a great game of dodge when asked for their sources.

Isabella said:-

Regarding the texts messages there was a number of them -18 i think sent immediately before and after her "disappearance". The pjs wanted these texts to be used in evidence. There was possibly emails also not sure. No this isnt tabloid nonsense..i actually saw the court paper work for it about a year ago now. The Pjs went to court and it was over ruled that they couldnt use them because they hadnt got permission for a tap before doing it ( because surprise surprise) they was slow our end in co operating.

Phone tapping has to be arranged before the fact - not after. You can't tap a phone to obtain information about calls made yesterday.

Now tell me why it would be suspicious that calls were made in the immediate aftermath of a child's disappearance when people were out looking for her.

I am not aware that telephone records include the contents of text messages, only when they were made and between which numbers.

I'm really interested in this. I would really appreciate a valid source about it. Someone saying "I read it" or "I saw it" isn't a source.

 

[Jayelles]

Oh please theres a world of difference between Denise Bulger and yet stick up for the McCanns?

There is a world of difference between what happened with Jamie Bulger and kids that fall into ponds and what the McCanns did. Denise was NOT negligent..the McCanns WERE.

And yes we must talk to different people or ..they only read the same publications as you..that obviously dont tell the whole truth if you didnt even know about the text messages.

But then for me its not just who i talk to...its what said on a nationwide scale..ie the poll in the daily where over 3/4 thought the McCanns knew what happened. Its the 100s who wrote on the site the other day voicing there feelings..

And Jade Goody - i fail to see what a woman who died of cancer has to do with the McCanns - a woman who IMO would have done ANYTHING to protect her kids. MOO

OK, now you've mentioned a poll. I seem to recall mention of this poll before. Can you provide a link to it? I fell this is important because Websleuths is recommeded reading by universities and academics do look for sources they can trust.

 

[Jayelles]

For the record - who said the McCanns killed there daughter? I personally believe she died accidentally. And yes they had the means for this to happen when she was being left alone such a lot and yes..there was means to dispose of her body - especially when its not known for a fact when she was last seen by anyone rather than the McCanns or there friends.

I guess we are in a different boat. For me everything the McCanns has done has spoken of there involvement.

Regarding the visit to the pope ( when they according to her mother was nt even religious) - when that Butterfly landed on Kate I actually thought it was Madeleines spirit come to say she was ok.

This is interesting. Madeleine was last seen at (was it 6.30 when Oldfield checked on her?) The McCanns were also first down at dinner that night at (was it?) 8.30. (I do have a note of these times but not time to look them up).

So within a space to two hours, you believe Madeleine was accidentally killed by her mother? both parents? Presumably they didn't just say "Oh Maddie's dead, let's get rid of her body quick otherwise we'll be late for dinner"? ... Considering they are both doctors, one would surely assume they tried to revive her? How long do you suppose a parent would spend trying to revive their child? (remember - Tick tock tick tock)

Then, you think they were able to hide her body effectively - know exactly where to hide it - and were able to do so without a car and in broad daylight in a busy holiday resort. Then having done that, they were able to calmly get ready for dinner and be first down to dinner? Not only that, they were able to eat dinner and have no-one suspect anything was wrong? I personally don't think I'd be able to eat if I'd just killed my child and hidden her body.

Also - why don't you think Gerry "discovered" her missing when it was his turn to check? Why prolong a charade of a meal?

 

[Isabella]

OK, now you've mentioned a poll. I seem to recall mention of this poll before. Can you provide a link to it? I fell this is important because Websleuths is recommeded reading by universities and academics do look for sources they can trust.

It was on the front page of either the Mail or Express. We ALL know that anything negative regarding the McCanns was removed pretty quickly. Of course..even though we all know thats the case im sure you will deny that also - MOO

 

[Refugee]

You've got me there. I mispoke and should have said abducted.

Well, I've suppressed my immediate responses to this post!

deep breath!

Maddie allegedly went missing whilst her parents abandoned her in an apartment, allegedly left unlocked, whilst they went into a secure area to enjoy themselves as if they didnt have children.

They have never openly and without caveat admitted that they left her and her even younger siblings unprotected and alone and that this was wrong. Therefore I think it safe to deduce that they clearly do not think that their behaviour should be used as a warning to others. This in itself begins to create a character picture of the McCanns.

There is no evidence at all that Madeleine was 'taken'.

The idea that you dont investigate the scent of an alleged crime is a highly questionable one. The best place to beging to track is of course the point of departure.

It is, in my view, another clear indication that the McCanns intention was to disrupt and confuse any real search and to divert attention from the real events of that night.

There are so many indications that the mcCanns are not genuine, very few - in fact I'd go further and say no - indications that they are genuine.

What is absolutely clear is that the McCanns were not and are not an ordinary hard working couple.

I could go on, but I'll just make one final point. If two people were to be questioned separately about an event, what better way to avoid contradiction than for one to answer questions and the other to refuse to answer questions.

Message to jayelles - would you like to have a direct person to person debate? I'd love to hear your ideas on the many different aspects of the case which indicate that your heroine and hero are, in my personal opinion, at the very least, child neglectors and at worst, child abusers.

I have to make one other point, why on earth would any normal well heeled couple need to use a fund allegedly set up to find their child to pay their mortgage?

It makes no sense.

 

[Texana]

I "criticize everything the McCanns say or do..."

I don't think so. I just see them through a very logical and what I think is a more objective filter. And I know I've expressed on more than one occasion the fact that I think they have suffered the loss of their child; that if indeed Madeleine suffered an accidental death resulting from being alone in the apartment, that they made the decision to fake an abduction based on fear of losing the twins. I've said that I do think they are grieving.

It's a very logical explanation that to me explains much of the contradictions, the physical evidence, and the actions and words of the McCanns themselves.

I've even said that I don't think Gerry was an uninvolved father; given his working class background I think he is probably a much better father than his own dad was. And I think that both of them worked hard for their careers and family.

What I don't do is immediately view everything they say or do with the starting pretext that their child was abducted.

They showed poor judgment on leaving their child alone. They haven't shown evidence of changed or improved judgment. That's just factual and for me, it's not personal.

Actually, I think my theory is much kinder to the McCanns. If they truly believe their child is in heaven due to an unfortunate accident, it is much more understandable that they say they hope she's being treated like a princess, than to think that they are in reality so abysmally naive and cruel as to think their child would be in the hands of an abductor for pedophiliac purposes, and being treated "like a princess."

Jayelles, the time line on when Madeleine was last seen alive has always been disputed and contradictory. There is not even credible evidence she was in the creche that day. Had she fallen the night before, her parents might not have even realized it until the next day or hours later when a subdural hematoma caused death. The death of Natasha Richardson is a perfect example of how this could have happened. Again, you are thinking what you could do as a parent.

The McCanns and most of their friends were trained medical professionals who every day put their personal emotions aside to do their job. If they were desperate to save the twins from being taken away, I believe they most certainly could have put on enough of an act to secure their family's future.

Thinking again: They've lost Madeleine. (Remember Kate's words to her mother: "She's gone.") They could lose their twins and have them put into care in Britain. That's a lot of motivation to do what seems impossible.

 

[Refugee]

This is interesting. Madeleine was last seen at (was it 6.30 when Oldfield checked on her?) The McCanns were also first down at dinner that night at (was it?) 8.30. (I do have a note of these times but not time to look them up).

So within a space to two hours, you believe Madeleine was accidentally killed by her mother? both parents? Presumably they didn't just say "Oh Maddie's dead, let's get rid of her body quick otherwise we'll be late for dinner"? ... Considering they are both doctors, one would surely assume they tried to revive her? How long do you suppose a parent would spend trying to revive their child? (remember - Tick tock tick tock)

Then, you think they were able to hide her body effectively - know exactly where to hide it - and were able to do so without a car and in broad daylight in a busy holiday resort. Then having done that, they were able to calmly get ready for dinner and be first down to dinner? Not only that, they were able to eat dinner and have no-one suspect anything was wrong? I personally don't think I'd be able to eat if I'd just killed my child and hidden her body.

Also - why don't you think Gerry "discovered" her missing when it was his turn to check? Why prolong a charade of a meal?

Foolish arguments.

Why dont you - instead of trying, as the supporters of these odious people always do, to pour scorn on any attempts to work out what they did - give us the explanation for how Madeleine was 'abducted' by a ghost?

Your last line shows clearly that your arguments are flawed. Obviously they wanted Kate to be the one who 'discovered her missing'. Why dont you consider why it was that whne she 'discovered her missing' she didnt just pop next door to ask Jane tanner if she had Madeleine with her? Especially as she apparently knew her child had been crying the night before, knew Jane was in her room? Wouldnt this 'intelligent' woman have done that - wouldnt any Mother have fought back the terrifying thought that their child had been abducted and look first for the logical alternatives?

Of course she would have.

Kate McCann didnt find her child missing at all, though she may have fouund her dead after a night out on the booze!

 

[Isabella]

This is interesting. Madeleine was last seen at (was it 6.30 when Oldfield checked on her?) The McCanns were also first down at dinner that night at (was it?) 8.30. (I do have a note of these times but not time to look them up).

So within a space to two hours, you believe Madeleine was accidentally killed by her mother? both parents? Presumably they didn't just say "Oh Maddie's dead, let's get rid of her body quick otherwise we'll be late for dinner"? ... Considering they are both doctors, one would surely assume they tried to revive her? How long do you suppose a parent would spend trying to revive their child? (remember - Tick tock tick tock)

Then, you think they were able to hide her body effectively - know exactly where to hide it - and were able to do so without a car and in broad daylight in a busy holiday resort. Then having done that, they were able to calmly get ready for dinner and be first down to dinner? Not only that, they were able to eat dinner and have no-one suspect anything was wrong? I personally don't think I'd be able to eat if I'd just killed my child and hidden her body.

Also - why don't you think Gerry "discovered" her missing when it was his turn to check? Why prolong a charade of a meal?

Im not sure if you have problems reading my posts or what but again i will ask - where did i say the McCanns killed Madeleiene? I said I believed she did in an accident whilst the parents were out drinking or otherwise occupied.

FYI i believe it was Payne who alleges he saw her at 6.30 ish. And even that was interesting cos one parent said he was there a few seconds and the other said half an hour. There have also been allegations made against Payne ..and what i said was we didnt know what time anyone UNCONNECTED to the McCanns last saw Madeleine. Im sorry but i dont class Payne as someone unconnected to the McCanns or motivated to tell the truth for that matter.

It is in fact possible she died many hours before they went out to the bar. Especially if we are going to believe that the dogs were correct. Because if they allege they went out at 8.30 ( and ive seen different times there also) then its unlikely there would have been long enough to get the smell for the dogs to hit on and ofc they had to clear the room up.

As for saying you wouldnt be able to eat if you had just killed your again - again i did not say they had killed there child - but ..i do without a shadow of a doubt think she died..and IMO the McCanns HAD to go out to try and get some sort of alibi.

Again..about not having a car - OBrien DID have a car. But anyhow i think both Gerry and OBrien was involved in moving her that night. I think she was probably buried and then moved again a few weeks later.

As for assuming they would try to revive her as they are Drs. That would depend on whether or not they was in fact there when she died wouldnt it? Again i do not believe she was kidnapped. There is not the slightest evidence to support this. So the answer IMO would be..when they came back why did they not ring the emergency services or take her to the hospital? Imo it was because she was long dead or she had died of something they didnt want to have to explain.

Btw you said why would it matter about the text messages? Of course it would matter what those test messages said. Due to the nature of the investigation i thought that would be obvious.

You say about discrepancies - they told there parents the shutters had been forced open ( they hadnt). They said the children were being checked every 15 mins and they wasnt. They said the window for a child to be kidnapped was so small because of the checking when in reality..

One final thing you said why didnt Gerry announce it on his check. Well as i recall..Gerry at one point said he went in the bedroom and couldnt see Madeleine and so assumed she had got a drink or something and went to sleep in her parents room. A few weeks later this changed..to he stood there looking at her thinking how lucky he was etc. For the record there was supposed to have been a check at 9.30 and i believe it was at that point she was supposed to be found to be "missing" except that it was later reported that the "checker" didnt go right in and see Madeleine so that didnt work.

MOO

 

[rashomon]

No offence but those dogs are amongst the best in the world at what they do - and there handler knows exactly what to do with them.

They recently found bones from children that had died in a childrens home from 40 years ago. They are just awesome. MOO

Info on the top sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

 

[Isabella]

Info on the top sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

Thank you for that They really are the most amazing dogs. Its incredible that the FBI will fly these dogs to America because there so good...and yet just this one case..there supposed to be lieing.

Weird the way that works really.

Offtopic but i have a Springer Spaniel too

 

[rashomon]

Didn't you know fingerprints were found in the apartment that the PJ couldn't link to any known people.

Unmatched fingerprints in a holiday apartment are to be expected.

Compare that to the cadaver odor behind the living room sofa coupled with blood (not visible to the eye because the surface had been cleaned) having five markers matching Madeleine's DNA. Such findings are not to be expected.

Their timelines did not vary widely - in Fact no more than is natural for any group of witnesses.

Let's start by just the facts and we'll take it from there.
Which imo means forget the Tapas group (including the McCanns) as credible sources to work with when it comes to establishing a RELIABLE time line. For their respective accounts vary so much that meanwhile one feels like in an 'supermarket' of testimonies where people can subjectively pick and choose among the display.

The starting point is: when was Madeleine last seen alive in public?
When was that, April4sky? Could you please post the info plus naming the witness(es) who saw her. TIA.

In their panic they were trying to work out exactly what happened and thought the shutters may have been forced - There is nothing strange about this.
Except of course for those who want there to be.

Okay, let's go along with the argument that the McCanns thought the shutters had been forced. Meanwhile we know this was not the case - just curious: have the McCanns ever commented on the shutters again and corrected their initial belief that the shutters had been forced?

Have they been asked about Kate's fingerprint found on the shutter?
If yes, what did they reply?

Madeleine shared very close DNA similarities to the twins and her parents.
They couldn't confirm - therefore couldn't rule any of the DNA either IN or OUT regarding Madeleine.

What DNA findings exactly are you referring to? Please name the sample, the location where it was collected and the markers found.

 

[Texana]

Take a look at the shutters photo and note that the vegetation is completely undisturbed. That's a physical fact.

The McCanns also amended their account to the effect that the intruder came through an unlocked door and left through the window carrying Madeleine.

Does that answer make sense?

You can't change the reality after the fact to match the evidence. It's not the way things work. No fingerprints, no damage, no outside evidence--the abductor didn't leave that way.

As well: Why would the account of which door was unlocked change? You would remember well which door you came in when you found your child missing. So why is there any question about which door was unlocked?

Accounts of time can vary a little. Accounts of who checked when, and what doors were unlocked, and who actually saw Madeleine when...those are should not vary one subparticle.

 

[Isabella]

Take a look at the shutters photo and note that the vegetation is completely undisturbed. That's a physical fact.

The McCanns also amended their account to the effect that the intruder came through an unlocked door and left through the window carrying Madeleine.

Does that answer make sense?

You can't change the reality after the fact to match the evidence. It's not the way things work. No fingerprints, no damage, no outside evidence--the abductor didn't leave that way.

As well: Why would the account of which door was unlocked change? You would remember well which door you came in when you found your child missing. So why is there any question about which door was unlocked?

Accounts of time can vary a little. Accounts of who checked when, and what doors were unlocked, and who actually saw Madeleine when...those are should not vary one subparticle.

Maybe the door that was supposedly unlocked changed because they was trying to say they could see the apartment door from the tapas bar wasnt they? Which actually was another lie because you could not.

Btw I may be wrong about this - but didnt Jez say he saw him near the shutters?

 

[Texana]

Maybe the door that was supposedly unlocked changed because they was trying to say they could see the apartment door from the tapas bar wasnt they? Which actually was another lie because you could not.

Btw I may be wrong about this - but didnt Jez say he saw him near the shutters?

The door that was reportedly first unlocked, wasn't visible from the restaurant, even the slightest. The door that they changed later, was.

Who wouldn't remember which door was left unlocked, since they would have used it to check on the children? You could always get the times slightly off. But the door that was used, and whether or not a key was used--those things you don't forget.

 

[april4sky]

Unmatched fingerprints in a holiday apartment are to be expected.

Agreed!
But it's a nonsense to flippantly discount them for such a reason - you could say the same about many crime scenes.
The fact remains one of them could be the abductors.

Compare that to the cadaver odor behind the living room sofa coupled with blood (not visible to the eye because the surface had been cleaned) having five markers matching Madeleine's DNA. Such findings are not to be expected.

Check out the final report.

Let's start by just the facts and we'll take it from there.
Which imo means forget the Tapas group (including the McCanns) as credible sources to work with when it comes to establishing a RELIABLE time line. For their respective accounts vary so much that meanwhile one feels like in an 'supermarket' of testimonies where people can subjectively pick and choose among the display.

Not true, there were no unatural variations in their statements. No different than any group of witnesses would be.
This was used as an excuse to smear them when in actual fact it would be suspicious if their statements had matched.

The starting point is: when was Madeleine last seen alive in public?
When was that, April4sky? Could you please post the info plus naming the witness(es) who saw her. TIA.

You will also find this information in the final report.
The PJ confirmed to their satisfaction when Madeleine was last seen.

Okay, let's go along with the argument that the McCanns thought the shutters had been forced. Meanwhile we know this was not the case - just curious: have the McCanns ever commented on the shutters again and corrected their initial belief that the shutters had been forced?

Have they been asked about Kate's fingerprint found on the shutter?
If yes, what did they reply?

Who knows!! Not me or you!
And their initial concerns/comments were perfectly natural under the circumstances.

Kates fingerprint was found on the inside of the shutter - nothing odd about that as she was staying in the apartment and had probably opened them.
If you were referring to the fingerprint found on the outside of the shutter - That wasn't Kate's! This didn't stop the anti-McCanns from smearing her. And that was posted here too!

What DNA findings exactly are you referring to? Please name the sample, the location where it was collected and the markers found.

All of them!
And if you wish to read parts of the final report, including the experts DNA conclusions it has been posted here.

 

[april4sky]

Yes April, I am from the UK and I can say quite categorically that I don't know any of these people who despise the McCanns so. Clearly Isabella and I move in different circles. The people I have spoken with about the case have nothing but a great sense of pity for them.

I know plenty of people who have been disgusted by the media reporting about the case - but only from the POV of the scandalous lies which were printed under the guise of "news".

I know plenty of people who feel angry that they left their children, but they all seem capable of separating the leaving of the children with Madeleines' subsequent disappearance. Phew.

I have no doubt this is the case Jayelles. It's clear from what I read and also the feedback I get from relatives and friends, including some in Ireland.

Reasonable people can and do separate how they may feel about baby listening from the awful and cruel accusation the McCanns had something to do with Madeleines disappearance.

The acusations are mainly on the internet and there are certain hate sites where Madeleines case is nothing more than a sick cruel game. IMO