Kate McCann's Diary

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
aa9511 said:
I know I am probably a little "out there" with this view, but I sometimes have trouble even believing it was an accident. First of all, what kind of accident happened where the girl almost immediately died? Because if there was an accident and she was fighting for her life, I don't care who you are or what country you're in, you're gonna call out for help. Also, Kate is a doctor which leads me to believe she could have administered some CPR or something until help got there. There are few accidents I can think of where the person will just IMMEDIATELY die, preventing the need to even ask for help.

****For the above paragraph I should say that I'm assuming Madeleine died sometime during the 6-something to 8:40 timeframe. B/c if she died while they were at dinner, how did they have time to do cover-up and come up with their plan/get their stories together (Kate and Gerry)?

Secondly, let's say some freak accident did happen......that would not go along with the parents' behavior after the accident. Such as seemingly little sadness, little emotion. This could be maybe better explained if they think she's still alive, but not really. Still alive but maybe being tortured/assaulted every day....would that make a mother feel "better" than if she's dead?? Not knowing where she is or what is happening to her! Or maybe the parents took the accidental death as just one of those things that happens in life, they have to "move on" for their other kids.....Madeleine would "understand" is maybe what they're thinking....but then what about the whole hypocrisy of it all and telling your fake story over and over again, and even writing a book about it? That makes no sense.

No way I think about it, no scenario I come up with, does any of this match up. I just don't understand. Maybe we will never know.
Click to expand...

After all this time I get a sense that this is a couple that didn't actually ENJOY their children. Sure they liked them just fine when they were good and not crying.

Even in her dairy, she seems annoyed enough to mention her twins crying.

She ditched those children every chance she got.
The story of Gerry sending the friend to check and see if Kate needed help as she was late...( IMO child already dead) seems very very odd. Was she THAT uncomfortable parenting? I state that I believe she was!

The best and most rewarding part of being a parent of young children is sharing the world with them. I look forward to vacationing and traveling with mine.

There were times when mine was very young and my parents went along...my husband and I did go out one or two nights alone. That was it. The rest if the time we all enjoyed FAMILY time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
goldengirl57 said:
Can honestly never understand why one would want to keep getting up every 10/15/20/30 minutes to check the kids. crikey I would have indigestion.

Surely it would have been so simple, to take the children with you and leave them at the night creche, then collect them and take them home at 11pm.

Jeez how hard was that scenario.

I mean it was UP, DOWN, DOWN, UP, UP DOWN, what was the point.....

AND pleassssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee if someone was watching them, they would never have risked taking the child no way.....
Click to expand...

You have answered your own question.
I am not a believer in the 'going out for dinner and leaving the children theory' at all. Indigestion and annoyance would be all you'd get from that. It was a means to an end IMO, a way of allowing Maddy to be abducted and distract from what was actually going on. My belief is something occurred some time before, hours or even days before. Something that needed them to form the 'pact' David Payne referred to.
If the children were always in your company or that of a creche how would you stage a disappearance ? You couldn't. They would rather you blame them for leaving her alone for 15 minutes or so than you think that they somehow were involved in the death of a child.
 
Clutchbag said:
Five News | McCanns speak to Natasha Kaplinsky - YouTube

Listen at 4.40, she does
Click to expand...

An interesting video.
Gerry says that the important thing is that there is no evidence that Madeleine has been seriously harmed.

On the Find Madeleine site there is a similar comment:

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
- See more at: http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html#sthash.1aEZGeVt.dpuf


Good God, what?? She was abducted from the only family she had ever known, has been missing for six years, and the police are looking for pedophiles in connection with the case. And there is nothing to suggest that she has been harmed??!!

WHAT do these people think happened to her?
 
Donjeta said:
An interesting video.
Gerry says that the important thing is that there is no evidence that Madeleine has been seriously harmed.

On the Find Madeleine site there is a similar comment:

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
- See more at: http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html#sthash.1aEZGeVt.dpuf


Good God, what?? She was abducted from the only family she had ever known, has been missing for six years, and the police are looking for pedophiles in connection with the case. And there is nothing to suggest that she has been harmed??!!

WHAT do these people think happened to her?
Click to expand...
No one wants to think the worst with regards to their child going missing. Perhaps they're holding on to the hope that she's been kidnapped for adoption purposes and she's now with another family. Many years ago there was a similar UK case with regards to a little boy who disappeared in Greece. Some people thought that Gypsies had taken him and maybe he'd been adopted out too. So, perhaps they have that case in mind as well.
 
What freaked me out the most is on the Crimewatch show, neither of them ever spoke once about getting Madeleine back.

They spoke of "answers" and "resolutions" but never once of actually finding Madeleine.

I also found it very strange they did not use the opportunity to "speak" to Madeleine who would now be 12 and if alive, possibly able to see the broadcast.

Never once did they say "Madeleine we are still looking for you".

:sick:

Oh and I am rather "fond" of my friends pet dog. Doesn't mean I want one yapping around my ankles though....:scared:
 
SapphireSteel said:
What freaked me out the most is on the Crimewatch show, neither of them ever spoke once about getting Madeleine back.

They spoke of "answers" and "resolutions" but never once of actually finding Madeleine.

I also found it very strange they did not use the opportunity to "speak" to Madeleine who would now be 12 and if alive, possibly able to see the broadcast.

Never once did they say "Madeleine we are still looking for you".

:sick:

Oh and I am rather "fond" of my friends pet dog. Doesn't mean I want one yapping around my ankles though....:scared:
Click to expand...

The whole thing is weird . So much publicity yet they dont speak directly to their daughter .
 
SapphireSteel said:
What freaked me out the most is on the Crimewatch show, neither of them ever spoke once about getting Madeleine back.

They spoke of "answers" and "resolutions" but never once of actually finding Madeleine.

I also found it very strange they did not use the opportunity to "speak" to Madeleine who would now be 12 and if alive, possibly able to see the broadcast.

Never once did they say "Madeleine we are still looking for you".

:sick:

Oh and I am rather "fond" of my friends pet dog. Doesn't mean I want one yapping around my ankles though....:scared:
Click to expand...

Madeleine is 10 now, she was born in 2003.. and it is not upon them what to talk about.
Crimewatch has a script, written by detectives, which they have to follow.
You should ask the detective why they choose this approach.
 
Pisces Cloud said:
No one wants to think the worst with regards to their child going missing. Perhaps they're holding on to the hope that she's been kidnapped for adoption purposes and she's now with another family. Many years ago there was a similar UK case with regards to a little boy who disappeared in Greece. Some people thought that Gypsies had taken him and maybe he'd been adopted out too. So, perhaps they have that case in mind as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, perhaps but even so she was harmed immensely, merely by being abducted from the family she loved.

IDK... if the theory is that a child may have been abducted by a gang of pedophiles who may hold her on a Mediterranean island and "introduce" her to international perverts but instead of a cry for justice there is insistence that there is nothing to suggest that she was harmed it just sounds to me like code for "there is no evidence we did anything".

There is holding on to hope and then there is a complete and total disinterest in and disregard of the immense pain and suffering that Madeleine may be suffering, perhaps beaten and raped daily in some local arielcastro's dingy attic.

And how does it make sense anyway? The reason they're continuing the search is that there is no evidence that Madeleine was harmed. If there was evidence that she was harmed they wouldn't be searching? Oh, she probably was harmed, oh nevermind then... :waitasec:
 
haden said:
Madeleine is 10 now, she was born in 2003.. and it is not upon them what to talk about.
Crimewatch has a script, written by detectives, which they have to follow.
You should ask the detective why they choose this approach.
Click to expand...

I know why the detectives chose this approach.

What we all fail to appreciate time and again is that the Crimewatch style broadcasts often speak to the perp not the public.

Everything they say is carefully designed to upset someone, or get a reaction, or in the McCanns case, give them more rope with which to hang themselves MY OPINION ONLY.

Kate and Gerry being narcissists, naturally cannot resist the opportunity to get their hair did and up on telly again.

:moo:

My point is, neither you nor I can definitively say why the Crimewatch programme took the form it did, nor who the programme was intended to speak directly to.

I imagine you would get a No Comment if you did manage to get AR on the phone.

:seeya:
 
Donjeta said:
Yeah, perhaps but even so she was harmed immensely, merely by being abducted from the family she loved.

IDK... if the theory is that a child may have been abducted by a gang of pedophiles who may hold her on a Mediterranean island and "introduce" her to international perverts but instead of a cry for justice there is insistence that there is nothing to suggest that she was harmed it just sounds to me like code for "there is no evidence we did anything".

There is holding on to hope and then there is a complete and total disinterest in and disregard of the immense pain and suffering that Madeleine may be suffering, perhaps beaten and raped daily in some local arielcastro's dingy attic.

And how does it make sense anyway? The reason they're continuing the search is that there is no evidence that Madeleine was harmed. If there was evidence that she was harmed they wouldn't be searching? Oh, she probably was harmed, oh nevermind then... :waitasec:
Click to expand...

The McCanns never said a word either directly to Madeleine, or about getting her home again.

The McCanns apparently believe she is deceased. :cow:
 
Donjeta said:
An interesting video.
Gerry says that the important thing is that there is no evidence that Madeleine has been seriously harmed.

On the Find Madeleine site there is a similar comment:

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
- See more at: http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html#sthash.1aEZGeVt.dpuf


Good God, what?? She was abducted from the only family she had ever known, has been missing for six years, and the police are looking for pedophiles in connection with the case. And there is nothing to suggest that she has been harmed??!!

WHAT do these people think happened to her?
Click to expand...

Ohhh yes I have noticed this type of talk in almost all of their interviews. They speak of the case as if they're outsiders....as if looking at it from a lawyer's viewpoint. Always in terms of "no evidence," "no proof," "nothing has been presented....". It is just odd and one more not-evidence kind of thing which makes me think they're guilty. They did that a lot with the dogs, that there is "no proof" and it doesn't "indicate anything," etc..

The way they talk about it makes me think of Amanda Knox, she also talks about things in terms of evidence and proof. They have to "prove I'm guilty or not-guilty," "prove that I did it or did not do it."
 
Is it true there is a statement somewhere from someone that at some point their was talk of Kate handing Madeleine off to a relative? Like "for keeps"???

I've heard it.. But can't find documentation to support it. Any help would be much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Edited to add... This is the only reference I could find.

"Yesterday Portuguese newspaper Correio de Manhas said Kate was quizzed over why she said from the start Maddie had been abducted.

Cops also asked whether she gave the children medication and if it was true that she sometimes despaired of their behaviour and had considered handing custody of Maddie to a relative."
 
Linda7NJ said:
Is it true there is a statement somewhere from someone that at some point their was talk of Kate handing Madeleine off to a relative? Like "for keeps"???

I've heard it.. But can't find documentation to support it. Any help would be much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Edited to add... This is the only reference I could find.

"Yesterday Portuguese newspaper Correio de Manhas said Kate was quizzed over why she said from the start Maddie had been abducted.

Cops also asked whether she gave the children medication and if it was true that she sometimes despaired of their behaviour and had considered handing custody of Maddie to a relative."
Click to expand...

Yes it was mooted way back then i did read it. i think you need to trawl all the files...

Also it was also shown that maddy was an awkward child at home, she didnt sleep well and they showed her star chart. I mean if she was a bad sleeper why the hell leave her on her own. I know my grandson at the time is the same age as Madeliene now he is 10. At the time he was a nightmare for sleeping would only go to bed with his mum when she went. She tried a star chart too, but it would be very hit and miss....

Also out there i found her favorite toy it was a brown teddy bear, she was holding on to it tightly whilst riding piggy back on her dads back this is a photo i found. She loved her bear. I believe that the uncle bought two pink hippos or something for the twins.

IF you look at the photo when the McCanns set off for Rome on their jollys, Kate is holding the pink toy, and one of the twins desperatly tries to grab onto it and take it back.

Was the toy given as an appeasement because the child wasnt given one it does seem odd that photo and I found one of one of the twins carrying it or similar.
 
Linda7NJ said:
After all this time I get a sense that this is a couple that didn't actually ENJOY their children. Sure they liked them just fine when they were good and not crying.

Even in her dairy, she seems annoyed enough to mention her twins crying.

She ditched those children every chance she got.
The story of Gerry sending the friend to check and see if Kate needed help as she was late...( IMO child already dead) seems very very odd. Was she THAT uncomfortable parenting? I state that I believe she was!

The best and most rewarding part of being a parent of young children is sharing the world with them. I look forward to vacationing and traveling with mine.

There were times when mine was very young and my parents went along...my husband and I did go out one or two nights alone. That was it. The rest if the time we all enjoyed FAMILY time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...I just remembered....isn't THAT the friend that was talked about as making strange "pedophile" like comments about children????
 
Donjeta said:
Yeah, perhaps but even so she was harmed immensely, merely by being abducted from the family she loved.

IDK... if the theory is that a child may have been abducted by a gang of pedophiles who may hold her on a Mediterranean island and "introduce" her to international perverts but instead of a cry for justice there is insistence that there is nothing to suggest that she was harmed it just sounds to me like code for "there is no evidence we did anything".


There is holding on to hope and then there is a complete and total disinterest in and disregard of the immense pain and suffering that Madeleine may be suffering, perhaps beaten and raped daily in some local arielcastro's dingy attic.

And how does it make sense anyway? The reason they're continuing the search is that there is no evidence that Madeleine was harmed. If there was evidence that she was harmed they wouldn't be searching? Oh, she probably was harmed, oh nevermind then... :waitasec:
Click to expand...
Wow, I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. I've watched most of the parents interviews and I don't hear them saying there is no proof....
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I'm trying to read the recent pages here ...trying to be sure I'm not missing anything.
 
When the parents say there is no evidence that Maddy was harmed they likely mean there was no evidence /SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO -
blood, other bodily fluids, hair, clothing etc etc at the resort, near the doorway , street etc.
AFAIK there was no evidence ..such as those I posted above...of her being
harmed during the investigations . If I'm wrong , let me know. :) because to my recollection I've not heard of blood ETC being found.
 
She was taken away from her loving family by a stranger. Of course she was harmed.

If they mean there was no blood why not say so? You can harm a child without blood evidence.
I believe that many stranger abductors who ended up murdering the child didn't leave blood evidence at the site of the abduction. There was no blood at Walmart where Cherish Perrywinkle was abducted from and she's dead now.
 
Pisces Cloud said:
No one wants to think the worst with regards to their child going missing. Perhaps they're holding on to the hope that she's been kidnapped for adoption purposes and she's now with another family. Many years ago there was a similar UK case with regards to a little boy who disappeared in Greece. Some people thought that Gypsies had taken him and maybe he'd been adopted out too. So, perhaps they have that case in mind as well.
Click to expand...

I feel the parents are holding onto hope, 10years later.
 
Donjeta said:
She was taken away from her loving family by a stranger. Of course she was harmed.

If they mean there was no blood why not say so? You can harm a child without blood evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's a given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 225 more.
Total: 4,044 (members: 226, guests: 3,818)

Online statistics

Members online
226
Guests online
3,818
Total visitors
4,044
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,147
Messages
17,964,135
Members
228,702
Latest member
cevans
Back
Top