Are the McCanns too sensitive to alternative points of view?

[stephen25000]

so why imply it in the first place?

Your belief that the mccanns told the truth has not been tested in court.

That you 'believe' them, is your choice, why should other people do so ?

[slartibartfast]

so why imply it in the first place?

Imply what?

[Benice]

Are you naive enough to believe that people always tell the truth ?

Also, what does it say about the mccanns, if Madeleine complained about them being left alone, and yet they still carried on doing the same ?

How many times are you going to keep asking the same question?   

As I have said before:

I believe the McCanns (along with all witnesses) told the truth as they remembered it. 

However because of the known fallibilty of memory - as described in detail by Steve Retford, a former head of the Investigative Skills Unit at GMP and now Specialist Interviewing Adviser with the force - it means that their recall of events may not be 100% accurate.

Do you think the McCanns were being less than forthcoming when they told the PJ what Madeleine had said to them?   A reply would be appreciated.


[Edited]

[slartibartfast]

what a lot of long words in which to imply that you believe the McCanns to be liars.  Isn't that against forum rules?

That seems to be your understanding of the sentence, it isn't what it says.

[G-Unit]

Exactly.   The McCanns had no need to ever mention what Madeleine had said to them.   They told the PJ because they thought it may have some relevance to her disappearance and that the perpetrator might have been in their apartment the night before.      Even then - they could have come up with a story like...''Madeleine told us she had a nasty dream about a man being in her room ' ... or something similar - which would get the same message across without leaving themselves open to criticism.     That's what deceitful liars would do IMO.

There is nothing in the files to support your assumption that the McCanns told the PJ about Madeleine's comment because they thought someone may have been in their apartment the previous evening.

Kate told Fiona and the other women about Madeleine's comment during dinner on the evening of the 3rd. It was given as the reason for leaving the patio door unlocked, to allow Madeleine to find them if she woke. Neither Kate nor Gerald told the PJ on 4th May about it. Gerald told them on 10th May, but didn't offer an explanation.

The alternative explanation is that Gerald realised that Kate had told the others about the incident, and that's why he decided to mention it on 10th. I don't know when the theory about an earlier intrusion was first mentioned, but it was reported in the press in September 2007.

[G-Unit]

the key phrase there is "I don't know".  As you don't know, and as you have no empathy for them, the best course of action IMO is to give them the benefit of the doubt and keep your snide remarks about their actions to yourself.  You may be right to doubt the McCanns and they may deserve your insinuations and suspicions, on the other hand thereis a very strong and real possibility that you are wrong, in which case that makes you (and all those who publicly voice their doubts) look both foolish and quite frankly rather unpleasant.  Your choice of course, my choice to keep on voicing this opinion.  In any case I know I can continue to do so,  safe in the knowledge that you are not in any way sensitive to such criticisms, and instead seem to rather relish them.

When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.

The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.

[Benice]

There is nothing in the files to support your assumption that the McCanns told the PJ about Madeleine's comment because they thought someone may have been in their apartment the previous evening.

Kate told Fiona and the other women about Madeleine's comment during dinner on the evening of the 3rd. It was given as the reason for leaving the patio door unlocked, to allow Madeleine to find them if she woke. Neither Kate nor Gerald told the PJ on 4th May about it. Gerald told them on 10th May, but didn't offer an explanation.

The alternative explanation is that Gerald realised that Kate had told the others about the incident, and that's why he decided to mention it on 10th. I don't know when the theory about an earlier intrusion was first mentioned, but it was reported in the press in September 2007.

Quote from Kates' book re the incident:  Page 63.

........But it is my belief that there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children's bedroom that night, and is what disturbed them. 
Unquote.

And it is for that reason IMO that they told the PJ of what Madeleine had said.

As for what the others had said:  It's the sceptic viewpoint that their friends had agreed to aid and abet covering up Madeleine's death and removal from 5a.     Having agreed to be a party to such an horrendous crime I see no reason for them to have any compunction at all about lying re what Kate told them Madeleine had said - if requested to by the McCanns.    Obviously none of that happened. 

My posts on this were because of the comments made about K&G being lying deceitful people. I maintain that if that was the case, they would not have told the truth about what Madeleine said to them when they didn't have to.  But they did tell the PJ - and they told the truth - even though it put themselves in a bad light,  IMO.

[faithlilly]

Is there any evidence that Madeleine was fearful & scared when she was put to bed on the Thursday night? If there was, then that would be distressing. However, statements suggest she was dog-tired & presumably never murmured before the parents left her sleeping at 8.30pm.
Would any listening service offered so widely by Mark Warner Group have addressed the care issue?

It doesn't need evidence just experience in looking after children to tell you that if a child has woken scared and alone one night they are going to be harder to put down the night after as they will be wary of it happening again.

[Alice Purjorick]

Exactly.   The McCanns had no need to ever mention what Madeleine had said to them.   They told the PJ because they thought it may have some relevance to her disappearance and that the perpetrator might have been in their apartment the night before.    Even then - they could have come up with a story like...''Madeleine told us she had a nasty dream about a man being in her room ' ... or something similar - which would get the same message across without leaving themselves open to criticism.     That's what deceitful liars would do IMO.

Is that a serious suggestion? If it is do you consider it a serious proposition ?
Doing a dummy run is hardly likely is it?

[slartibartfast]

Are you for real?   How many posts are there on here from posters accusing the McCanns of lying about the open shutters and in fact -  practically everything else they have ever said about this case?  They don't get accused of commiting or encouraging libel.

My question to Stephen asking his opinion was a simple enough one.  If his reply is that he believes the McCanns told the truth - then that is definitely not libel.   If his opinion is that they lied,- then what is the difference between that opinion and the innumerable posts from other people who believe the McCanns lied about various events and who have no compunction at all in saying so on this forum?

I think your comment is out of order.

(Edited for clarity.)

Pointing out discrepancies in statements casts doubt on those statements.

[Benice]

It doesn't need evidence just experience in looking after children to tell you that if a child has woken scared and alone one night they are going to be harder to put down the night after as they will be wary of it happening again.

Madeleine was not  in a state of distress when she questioned her parents.   In fact the opposite is true as she didn't even wait for a reply - but moved away to do something else and didn't mention it again.     The fact that she did not have any problems at the next bedtime (and neither did Sean) - or mention any fears to her parents at that time -  would suggest that she had completely forgotten about the incident IMO.



   

[faithlilly]

Is that a serious suggestion? If it is do you consider it a serious proposition ?
Doing a dummy run is hardly likely is it?

At the moment the consensus from the faithful seems to be that a burglar broke into the apartment waking Madeleine then took her with him. Yet now it seems we are being told to believe that he broke in and also woke her the night before too which somewhat begs the question, why didn't he take her the night before ?

[faithlilly]

Madeleine was not  in a state of distress when she questioned her parents.   In fact the opposite is true as she didn't even wait for a reply - but moved away to do something else and didn't mention it again.     The fact that she did not have any problems at the next bedtime (and neither did Sean) - or mention any fears to her parents at that time -  would suggest that she had completely forgotten about the incident IMO.



 

Or would more likely suggest it simply wasn't true.

[Alice Purjorick]

At the moment the consensus from the faithful seems to be that a burglar broke into the apartment waking Madeleine then took her with him. Yet now it seems we are being told to believe that he broke in and also woke her the night before too which somewhat begs the question, why didn't he take her the night before ?

And why increase the risk of being caught? The guy being experienced enough to have a load of 'is 'oppos watching the place and seeing people trucking up and down the street at irregular intervals.

[faithlilly]

And why increase the risk of being caught? The guy being experienced enough to have a load of 'is 'oppos watching the place and seeing people trucking up and down street at irregular intervals.

You have to wonder, don't you !