Are the McCanns too sensitive to alternative points of view?

[Alice Purjorick]

You have to wonder, don't you !

Not really!. I did a Victor Meldrew on that bit ages ago.

[Benice]

Pointing out discrepancies in statements casts doubt on those statements.

Discrepancies in statements is not proof that lies have been told. Far from it.     However that is exactly what is claimed as 'fact' by many sceptics on this forum and they are allowed to say it.   

Perhaps you could explain why  - if Stephen had said he didn't believe the McCanns told the truth about what Madeleine had said to them - that would be any more libellous than folk claiming that the McCanns lied about the open shutter and window?.

[Benice]

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

Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that?  Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?

[G-Unit]

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.

When, in your opinion, did the McCanns decide that Madeleine and her brother may have cried because an abductor did a dummy run? When, in your opinion, were those suspicions passed on to the PJ?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that?  Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?

You were not there when that conversation took place, therefore, you do not know if Madeleine was distressed or not, you also do not know the actual content. The conversation according to Kate was something of nothing- if that was the case why did Maddie tell her parents?
I find it difficult to grasp that a 3 year old woke up maybe crying or her sibling was,  she goes through to get her parents and realises they are all alone in that house! And she goes back to bed, falls asleep not the least bit bothered by that? I would be terrified at that age. So, we only have Kate's version of that story, and her version makes it to be something out of nothing.

The only reason they told the police, was because Kate had told someone else about it,IMO.

[Benice]

When, in your opinion, did the McCanns decide that Madeleine and her brother may have cried because an abductor did a dummy run? When, in your opinion, were those suspicions passed on to the PJ?

I don't have a particular opinion on it - I quoted Kate's opinion - to show why she truthfully told the police about the incident -  and which was not the action of deceitful liars IMO.     That - along with the stain on Madeleine's pjs which she couldn't explain - made her wonder if the perpetrator had been in the apartment on 2nd May.     

They were desperately going over every tiny event at the time trying to make sense of what had happened and so stuff which seemed relatively unimportant before she was taken took on a whole new perspective after she disappeared.  IMO

[Benice]

You were not there when that conversation took place, therefore, you do not know if Madeleine was distressed or not, you also do not know the actual content. The conversation according to Kate was something of nothing- if that was the case why did Maddie tell her parents?
I find it difficult to grasp that a 3 year old woke up maybe crying or her sibling was,  she goes through to get her parents and realises they are all alone in that house! And she goes back to bed, falls asleep not the least bit bothered by that? I would be terrified at that age. So, we only have Kate's version of that story, and her version makes it to be something out of nothing.

The only reason they told the police, was because Kate had told someone else about it,IMO.

No I wasn't there - and neither were you Faith.   You have your opinion and I have mine.   As we come from different ends of the spectrum we shall never agree.

Anyway visitors are imminent - so I'll leave you to it.  Have a pleasant day.

[mercury]

I don't have a particular opinion on it - I quoted Kate's opinion - to show why she truthfully told the police about the incident -  and which was not the action of deceitful liars IMO.     That - along with the stain on Madeleine's pjs which she couldn't explain - made her wonder if the perpetrator had been in the apartment on 2nd May.     

They were desperately going over every tiny event at the time trying to make sense of what had happened and so stuff which seemed relatively unimportant before she was taken took on a whole new perspective after she disappeared.  IMO

Was she being truthful though was she when she said that incident would never ever have crossed her mind ever again had Madeleine not been abducted, or was that another discrepancy-non discrepancy-she forgot-kind of thing

[mercury]

You don't have to read the media articles or spend hours expressing your distaste for the McCanns, do you?
There are many who care enough or are interested enough to watch this case progress & hope for a positive outcome.
You have an "off" button. Sadly, Madeleine's parents don't at this time.

You must be mistaking me for someone else as I don't spend much time let alone hours expressing "distaste" of two strangers ...the case is interesting on quite a few levels and until it is solved and I dare say even afterm will hold fascination, which is different to agreeing to never ending unprecedented levels of support

[faithlilly]

Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that?  Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?

The whole ' Madeleine waking the night before' nonsense. If I had to take a stab at why it was inserted to begin with I would say to muddy the waters with regard to the crying heard on the 1st of May. The McCanns would certainly have been aware that Madeleine's crying may have been overheard on that night.

[mercury]

Then if the offend your sensibilities so very much why do you spend most evenings contemplating their actions?

Cold cases are fascinating, puzzles to be solved, what is also fascinating is people watching, watchng people jumping through hoops and coming out with outrageous and often laughable statements, always interesting human nature...I'm sure you would agree

 

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

It was me who replied to say you were not there....

(something gone wrong here)

[G-Unit]

I don't have a particular opinion on it - I quoted Kate's opinion - to show why she truthfully told the police about the incident -  and which was not the action of deceitful liars IMO.     That - along with the stain on Madeleine's pjs which she couldn't explain - made her wonder if the perpetrator had been in the apartment on 2nd May.     

They were desperately going over every tiny event at the time trying to make sense of what had happened and so stuff which seemed relatively unimportant before she was taken took on a whole new perspective after she disappeared.  IMO

You said they told the PJ and you gave your opinion as to why they told the PJ.  On 4th May Kate told the PJ that Madeleine had said the twins were crying. She didn't refer to Madeleine crying and she gave no opinion on why the incident might be significant. Gerald told the PJ in his statement dated 10th May that it was Madeleine and a twin who were crying. He also gave no opinion as to why that might be signifcant.

The theory about a 'dummy run' by an abductor seems to have come later and wasn't shared with the PJ. Therefore your opinion that they told the Pj because they thought it was significant has no supporting evidence. I would suggest that they told the PJ because Kate had already told their friends about it. When she told their friends the reason for telling them was quite different; it was to justify leaving the patio door unlocked.

[faithlilly]

You said they told the PJ and you gave your opinion as to why they told the PJ.  On 4th May Kate told the PJ that Madeleine had said the twins were crying. She didn't refer to Madeleine crying and she gave no opinion on why the incident might be significant. Gerald told the PJ in his statement dated 10th May that it was Madeleine and a twin who were crying. He also gave no opinion as to why that might be signifcant.

The theory about a 'dummy run' by an abductor seems to have come later and wasn't shared with the PJ. Therefore your opinion that they told the Pj because they thought it was significant has no supporting evidence. I would suggest that they told the PJ because Kate had already told their friends about it. When she told their friends the reason for telling them was quite different; it was to justify leaving the patio door unlocked.

I'm not altogether sure she actually told the friends about it at the time. No one, AFAIAA, mentioned being told about Madeleine's comment until the rogatory interviews and therefore after the cosy get-together in Rothley. For me anything 'remembered' after that meeting must have the suspicion of collusion attached to it.

[Brietta]

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 ?

The trouble with that statement is that for the Drs McCann to have been 'tested in court' there had to be evidence to allow them to be taken to court in the first instance.

That is the usual requirement of law in a democratic state.

After investigation the State of Portugal chose not to prosecute them ... you know better?