McCanns launch new appeal

[april4sky]

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

From what I have read yes.

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 not possible to be "objective" if starting from the premise the McCanns were involved in their childs disappearance. IMO

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.

Again it's not objective to start from the premise the McCanns are guilty of involvement and then filtering in/out whatever you choose to the detriment of them. Where is the logic in that?

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.

Well this might feel "objective" but it's easy as it has nothing to do with accusations and nothing to do with anything they said or did.

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

No but starting with the pretext Madeleine wasn't abducted means it's not possible to be "objective" if as you believe the McCanns are involved.

This belief colours every thought about them and must affect the way you look at everything they say and do.

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.

They know, and we know they showed poor judgement but the filter being used proves my point I think.

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."

Pulling apart every word they have used is IMO just another excuse to critisize them. That danged slanted filter has a lot to do with it IMO
Not as much "objective" as it is spin.

I'm not perfect either Texana, none of us are! No doubt you'll let me know.

 

[Refugee]

From what I have read yes.

It's not possible to be "objective" if starting from the premise the McCanns were involved in their childs disappearance. IMO
Again it's not objective to start from the premise the McCanns are guilty of involvement and then filtering in/out whatever you choose to the detriment of them. Where is the logic in that?
Well this might feel "objective" but it's easy as it has nothing to do with accusations and nothing to do with anything they said or did.

No but starting with the pretext Madeleine wasn't abducted means it's not possible to be "objective" if as you believe the McCanns are involved.

This belief colours every thought about them and must affect the way you look at everything they say and do. They know, and we know they showed poor judgement but the filter being used proves my point I think.

Pulling apart every word they have used is IMO just another excuse to critisize them. That danged slanted filter has a lot to do with it IMO
Not as much "objective" as it is spin.

I'm not perfect either Texana, none of us are! No doubt you'll let me know.

Starting from the pretext that there was an abductor means its not possible for you to be 'objective'. Starting from the pretext that we do not know, is far safer.

So why do the McCanns start from that pretext and expect everyone else to do so? Why dont they accept that 'people' primarily will take the objective view and allow it, instead of accusing anyone who takes that view, the view that 'we dont know', of 'attacking them' or 'smearing them'?

The fact is we do not know. The obvious next step is to consider the possibilities. The most unlikely possibility is abduction - based on the information we have. The McCanns refused to answer very pertinant questions and made very odd statements, like Gerry thought that the twins 'might have been sedated' - yet didnt have them tested. Kate claims contact with 6 cadavers, yet no one has provided the evidence. kate refused to answer the questions of the PJ and the man who led the investigation is convinced madelein is dead, has written a book, yet no judicial action has been taken by the McCanns against him! I could go on and on!

So what are the possibilities? Accident when abandoned? I'd say no one can discount that one.

Accidental homicide when one of the often described as 'incandescant' and often descibed as 'furious' McCanns lost it and struck her?

Accidental overdose when using drugs to subdue the children when they were abandoned?

One of the 'friends' accidentally killed her? One of the 'friends' abducted her?

As you can see, there are plenty of possibilities other than 'abduction'.

Why would we only look at the choice selected immediately by the McCanns?
Why dismiss all other options without evidence to do so, yet pursue wild theories of paedophile rings, slave trading etc and proclaim them joyeously as if they are things to be hoped for!

We can argue forever - probably wil ldo - bit fo one thing we cannot argue, WE DO NOT KNOW!

So nobody can effectively 'search' for Madeleine without any trail to follow, so the most effective use of effort should be to start at the beginning - an independant public inquiry (not a Parliamentary investigation as we know the UK Government at all levels is biased).

 

[Isabella]

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

Well maybe its just the English then who think it lol. Although when speaking to a friend of mine from Scotland this morning ( Aberdeen) he said Gerry was nothing but a MF and a disgrace to fathers.

Believe what you want. The facts are there. For some reason some just choose not to see them

MOO

 

[rashomon]

Agreed!
Check out the final report.

Could you give a link to that report? TIA.

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.

You miss the point. It is not about unnatural variations, but about the whole time line being a jumbled mess and therfore pretty useless. No surprise there, for larger group people having a night out with wine flowing freely are no likely to remember accurately who did what and when.

Who knows!! Not me or you!

So you don't know. That's all I wanted to know.

And their initial concerns/comments were perfectly natural under the circumstances.

This is a mere personal opinion stated as fact.

If you were referring to the fingerprint found on the outside of the shutter - That wasn't Kate's!

Whose fingergerprint was it?

 

[Isabella]

You talk about "Hate sites where Madeleienses case is nothing more than a sick cruel game". Er but you and Jayelles said that everyone over here was sooooo supportive of the McCanns so isnt that contrdictory? Incidentally there not "hate sites" or at least if you mean the 3AS. It exists SIMPLY because no where else can people talk about the McCanns without the government etc trying to block it.

And NO..its not a cruel sick game to people on that site. Though they may think its cruel and sick that Madeleine didnt get justice. The people on that site ( from what i have seen) really want justice for that little girl and there are some awesome researchers on there and the Portugese members on that site have helped with the case a lot.

Im sorry that by researching the case..they may say things about Gerry and Kate that you dont like - BUT that happens when your daughter has disappeared and you was the last person to see her and you wont co operate with the police and do everything you can to derail the case. Now me..i think thats cruel and sick MOO

 

[april4sky]

Could you give a link to that report? TIA.

There is a final report thread here which contains the initial release of the report though i'm not sure this contains the DNA evidence.
If not there are newspaper links here that do contain copies of all of the DNA tests and conclusions from the full DVD release.

You miss the point. It is not about unnatural variations, but about the whole time line being a jumbled mess and therfore pretty useless. No surprise there, for larger group people having a night out with wine flowing freely are no likely to remember accurately who did what and when.

I don't accept the timeline is a jumbled mess.

So you don't know. That's all I wanted to know.

Your welcome.

This is a mere personal opinion stated as fact.

Yes, I should have included IMO

I think you will also find you included a mere personal opinion in with the timeline question.

Whose fingergerprint was it?

The information about the fingerprint is in the final report - again there are copies somewhere here as we discussed it not too long ago.

I don't think it was matched to any known person.

 

[Isabella]

I have a question. To me the report leaves MANY questions unanswered. Apparently there was a lot of evidence that wasnt put on the disc. How many of you believe the report in its entirety OR think it was dumbed down somewhat so the McCanns wouldnt be charged?

 

[Jayelles]

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!

I don't believe in ghosts. I think she was abducted by an intruder. I also don't believe that children turn into butterflies when they die

 

[Jayelles]

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

So if she died while they were out eating their dinner, when and how do you suppose they got rid of the body? Considering they only ever left the table for 10 minutes or so at a time, that makes a considerably smaller window to do all they'd have had to do.

ETA - I take it that if you think they found her dead on one of the trips back to the flat that they decided just to quickly get rid of the body and that they didn't attempt to rescusitate her?

Whether they killed her or "merely" found her dead is not IMO going to make a huge difference with regard to whether or not they would be able to act normally at a dinner table. The death of a child is the worst thing that can happen to any parent.

Here is the timeline from the Times website:-

Timeline of May 3, 2007
10am Madeleine and her twin siblings Sean and Amelie were placed in the Ocean Club’s Kids Club while their parents go for a walk.
12.30pm Kate and Gerry McCann collect children. They have lunch at their apartment before going to the Ocean Club swimming pool.
2.29pm The last photograph of Madeleine is taken at the pool. The camera's clock reads 1.29pm, but the family says it was out by one hour.
3.30pm Children return to Kids Club.
5.30pm Children have tea at Kids Club.
6pm Mrs McCann takes children back to apartment while husband starts an hour-long tennis lesson.
6.30pm Mr McCann asks David Payne to check on Mrs McCann and children at the apartment.
7pm Mr McCann returns to apartment and children are put to bed.
7.30pm Mr and Mrs McCann shower and change.
8.35pm McCanns are the first of the group to arrive at the tapas restaurant, 50 yards away from their apartment
9.05pm Mr McCann returns to the apartment to check the children. He enters through the unlocked patio doors sees all three children asleep.
9.08pm Walking back to the tapas club Mr McCann sees Jeremy Wilkins on the opposite side of the road. The men spend several minutes talking.
9.10pm Jane Tanner walks up the road unnoticed by Mr McCann and Wilkins. She sees a man walking across the road in front of her carrying a girl in his arms
9.30pm Matthew Oldfield leaves tapas restaurants to check on group’s children. Sees twins in their cots but does not directly see Madeleine’s bed.
10.00pm Mrs McCann checks children and finds bedroom window open. Twins are sleeping, but Madeleine’s bed is empty

She was last seen by an independent witness at 6.30 and it was indeed Dr Payne, not Oldfield as I had guessed from recollection.

ETA - I am not going to get involved in petty semantic arguments with you. You can make any theory work if you choose to ignore basic facts.

 

[Jayelles]

You talk about "Hate sites where Madeleienses case is nothing more than a sick cruel game". Er but you and Jayelles said that everyone over here was sooooo supportive of the McCanns so isnt that contrdictory? Incidentally there not "hate sites" or at least if you mean the 3AS. It exists SIMPLY because no where else can people talk about the McCanns without the government etc trying to block it.

And NO..its not a cruel sick game to people on that site. Though they may think its cruel and sick that Madeleine didnt get justice. The people on that site ( from what i have seen) really want justice for that little girl and there are some awesome researchers on there and the Portugese members on that site have helped with the case a lot.

Im sorry that by researching the case..they may say things about Gerry and Kate that you dont like - BUT that happens when your daughter has disappeared and you was the last person to see her and you wont co operate with the police and do everything you can to derail the case. Now me..i think thats cruel and sick MOO

If by "Government" blocking discussions you mean the British legal system yes it's a devil isn't it. Imagine having a legal system that protects people from having malicious lies posted all over the Internet about them. Tut. :dance:

 

[Jayelles]

Well maybe its just the English then who think it lol. Although when speaking to a friend of mine from Scotland this morning ( Aberdeen) he said Gerry was nothing but a MF and a disgrace to fathers.

Believe what you want. The facts are there. For some reason some just choose not to see them

MOO

MF? If MF stands for what I think it does, it's an expression I've only ever heard on American movies. Perhaps your friend is an American living in Aberdeen? Sounds charming either way.

 

[Jayelles]

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

Negative? No, wrong word. False. There would be no need to remove anything negative if it was true. The "Government" wouldn't have been able to stop that

The McCanns sued the Express for libel and won. At least justice was done in that respect.

 

[Isabella]

I don't believe in ghosts. I think she was abducted by an intruder. I also don't believe that children turn into butterflies when they die

To be honest - ive seen more people say they have had a sign from a loved one after they passed away than i have seen children kidnapped by imaginary intruders

JMO

 

[Isabella]

So if she died while they were out eating their dinner, when and how do you suppose they got rid of the body? Considering they only ever left the table for 10 minutes or so at a time, that makes a considerably smaller window to do all they'd have had to do.

ETA - I take it that if you think they found her dead on one of the trips back to the flat that they decided just to quickly get rid of the body and that they didn't attempt to rescusitate her?

Whether they killed her or "merely" found her dead is not IMO going to make a huge difference with regard to whether or not they would be able to act normally at a dinner table. The death of a child is the worst thing that can happen to any parent.

Here is the timeline from the Times website:-



She was last seen by an independent witness at 6.30 and it was indeed Dr Payne, not Oldfield as I had guessed from recollection.

ETA - I am not going to get involved in petty semantic arguments with you. You can make any theory work if you choose to ignore basic facts.

AGAIN..if you had read my posts you would know i didnt think they found her dead on one of the visits to the flat. IMO that wouldnt have left a big enough time time line.

And regarding your time line - Most of that could be disputed MOO

Oh and David Payne is not an independant witness lol

 

[Isabella]

If by "Government" blocking discussions you mean the British legal system yes it's a devil isn't it. Imagine having a legal system that protects people from having malicious lies posted all over the Internet about them. Tut. :dance:

So why could they do it for Karen Matthews when Shannon was supposed to have been missing?


There is a girl supposed to be missing. In any OTHER case we would be allowed to discuss this.

 

[Isabella]

Negative? No, wrong word. False. There would be no need to remove anything negative if it was true. The "Government" wouldn't have been able to stop that

The McCanns sued the Express for libel and won. At least justice was done in that respect.

The Express in fact settled out of court so no they didnt win anything.

I really dont understand..how you can sit there grinning about everything regarding the McCanns when a little girl is "missing" and they wont help to find her?

Somehow it seems for the McCann supporters its more about the parents getting off than justice.
Weird

 

[Isabella]

MF? If MF stands for what I think it does, it's an expression I've only ever heard on American movies. Perhaps your friend is an American living in Aberdeen? Sounds charming either way.

Nah hes deffo Scottish.

Incidentally..i thought it was "charming" when Gerry swore in front on his kids. Good example huh.

 

[Texana]

From what I have read yes.

It's not possible to be "objective" if starting from the premise the McCanns were involved in their childs disappearance. IMO
Again it's not objective to start from the premise the McCanns are guilty of involvement and then filtering in/out whatever you choose to the detriment of them. Where is the logic in that?
Well this might feel "objective" but it's easy as it has nothing to do with accusations and nothing to do with anything they said or did.

No but starting with the pretext Madeleine wasn't abducted means it's not possible to be "objective" if as you believe the McCanns are involved.

This belief colours every thought about them and must affect the way you look at everything they say and do. They know, and we know they showed poor judgement but the filter being used proves my point I think.

Pulling apart every word they have used is IMO just another excuse to critisize them. That danged slanted filter has a lot to do with it IMO
Not as much "objective" as it is spin.

I'm not perfect either Texana, none of us are! No doubt you'll let me know.

I absolutely came to this with an open mind. I did not start out with the belief that the McCanns were involved; if anything, I had a slight bias towards the McCanns. I still do feel sympathetic towards them in that I believe they are grieving the loss of their child and if anything, have not been able to express that openly.

For example, I am a fence sitter on the Ramsey case. If I had to jump off the fence and choose a side, I'd probably have to pick Ramsey involvement because the evidence (as contaminated as it was) leans that way. As to which Ramsey was involved, I find compelling arguments for several theories. I have a personal connection with people whose child was abducted and murdered. It's been made into a novel so it has some notoriety. So many things that were said and done by the McCanns simply did not add up to making sense. It doesn't make me a hater to think that.

It might make you feel better to think that I started out believing the McCanns were involved. It's easier than thinking that anyone else might rationally look at the evidence and decide other than what you did.

As for being perfect or not, when we start talking that way, we're heading into personal territory and should probably just avoid that line of thought altogether. I'd much rather agree with you about Australian wines than end up in a back-and-forth that violates TOS. I have some Yellow Tail shiraz tonight and I tried a new one this week, Little Roo.

So we can end on that note.

 

[Isabella]

I absolutely came to this with an open mind. I did not start out with the belief that the McCanns were involved; if anything, I had a slight bias towards the McCanns. I still do feel sympathetic towards them in that I believe they are grieving the loss of their child and if anything, have not been able to express that openly.

For example, I am a fence sitter on the Ramsey case. If I had to jump off the fence and choose a side, I'd probably have to pick Ramsey involvement because the evidence (as contaminated as it was) leans that way. As to which Ramsey was involved, I find compelling arguments for several theories. I have a personal connection with people whose child was abducted and murdered. It's been made into a novel so it has some notoriety. So many things that were said and done by the McCanns simply did not add up to making sense. It doesn't make me a hater to think that.

It might make you feel better to think that I started out believing the McCanns were involved. It's easier than thinking that anyone else might rationally look at the evidence and decide other than what you did.

As for being perfect or not, when we start talking that way, we're heading into personal territory and should probably just avoid that line of thought altogether. I'd much rather agree with you about Australian wines than end up in a back-and-forth that violates TOS. I have some Yellow Tail shiraz tonight and I tried a new one this week, Little Roo.

So we can end on that note.

Incidentally..I was one of the biggest McCann supporters out. I used to drive people nuts on Insessions and was asked if i was paid to support the McCanns lol.

The thing what changed my mind..or started to was the video by Spudgun. When it started i didnt take my eyes off it til it was finished. I showed a lot of my friends the same thing and we was all amazed by it. Then i started looking at the None English Press...and...bit by bit..there was so many inconsistencies and i was just unable to believe them any more.

I would think anyone..who had an open mind..would realise there was many inconsistencies in the McCanns stories.

 

[Texana]

Incidentally..I was one of the biggest McCann supporters out. I used to drive people nuts on Insessions and was asked if i was paid to support the McCanns lol.

The thing what changed my mind..or started to was the video by Spudgun. When it started i didnt take my eyes off it til it was finished. I showed a lot of my friends the same thing and we was all amazed by it. Then i started looking at the None English Press...and...bit by bit..there was so many inconsistencies and i was just unable to believe them any more.

I would think anyone..who had an open mind..would realise there was many inconsistencies in the McCanns stories.

Exactly, Isabella. We all start off wanting to believe the best of everyone. It is almost offensive, really, to think that anyone would not give them the benefit of the doubt from the get go.