I was amazed when I arrived at chapter 20 to find it entitled 'The good, the bad and the mad; the mad referring to those suffering mental illness. Somewhat worrying to hear such a label given to the mentally ill by a medi doctor and former GP who goes on to explain correspondence received from such individuals went into the 'Nutty' box. (Page 379).
I was amazed when I arrived at chapter 20 to find it entitled 'The good, the bad and the mad; the mad referring to those suffering mental illness. Somewhat worrying to hear such a label given to the mentally ill by a medi doctor and former GP who goes on to explain correspondence received from such individuals went into the 'Nutty' box. (Page 379).
Obviously her six-month stint working in psychiatry was well spent. It enabled her to diagnose schizophrenics and manic depressives who contacted them!
I dint see anything wrong with it and it's a good description of where some of the ridiculous theories belong
One might have hoped she would have more empathy for the mentally ill than describing them as "mad" and telling anyone that read her pb that she placed their correspondence in the "nutty box". 8(8-))
I see a clear distinction between mediums, psychics etc and the mentally ill.
I'd be interested in seeing kates exact words and phrases.... Your paraphrasing may not give a accurate representation.
Referring to avtheory as mad... May not be implying mental illness
So for every baddy [sic] there are a thousand goodies; probably many more. And then there are those it is impossible to be sure about - the folk whose correspondence goes into the 'Nutty' box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering from mental illness, and I don't want to make light of their problems. Page 379.Why a sic for baddy?... that's just another way of spelling it! Tesko's email to them about his ghostly visions in the derelict building must have gone into their 'Nutty' box. Needless to say they never replied!
I don't wish to sound sanctimonious but I think a medi doc/former GP referring to the mentally ill and/or their correspondence as 'nutty' is somewhat misplaced.
After what she's been through her patience seems to have deserted her;
All GPs have a handful of patients who present with comparatively trivial problems. In view of what I’ve been through, and am going through still, I’d be concerned I wouldn’t have quite the sympathetic ear I once
possessed. [madeleine]
So for every baddy [sic] there are a thousand goodies; probably many more. And then there are those it is impossible to be sure about - the folk whose correspondence goes into the 'Nutty' box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering from mental illness, and I don't want to make light of their problems. Page 379.
I don't wish to sound sanctimonious but I think a medi doc/former GP referring to the mentally ill and/or their correspondence as 'nutty' is somewhat misplaced.
So for every baddy [sic] there are a thousand goodies; probably many more. And then there are those it is impossible to be sure about - the folk whose correspondence goes into the 'Nutty' box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering from mental illness, and I don't want to make light of their problems. Page 379.Sorry, are you the same person who was taking the piss out of Kate’s background and accent a few days ago? How would you describe such people collectively? Personally I think “nutty” is a preferable label to “mentally ill”, but that’s just me.
I don't wish to sound sanctimonious but I think a medi doc/former GP referring to the mentally ill and/or their correspondence as 'nutty' is somewhat misplaced.
I dint see anything wrong with it and it's a good description of where some of the ridiculous theories belongKate believed in God, you don't.
Kate believed in God, you don't.Ask her to join here - it would be interesting to see if people self moderate knowing Kate’s mother is reading.
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab, I doubt if you would do that.
Kate and Gerry took Cuddle Cat to Fatima and later to the Pope, why would she do that?
And yet you think she has it over those who have different beliefs.
When I read that chapter I felt Kate was going over the top picking on my theory. In spite of all of this Kate's mum, Susan Healy, joined my Facebook group and the other day became one of my Facebook friends. That has me rather baffled TBH.
Kate believed in God, you don't.
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab, I doubt if you would do that.
Kate and Gerry took Cuddle Cat to Fatima and later to the Pope, why would she do that?
And yet you think she has it over those who have different beliefs.
When I read that chapter I felt Kate was going over the top picking on my theory. In spite of all of this Kate's mum, Susan Healy, joined my Facebook group and the other day became one of my Facebook friends. That has me rather baffled TBH.
Ask her to join here - it would be interesting to see if people self moderate knowing Kate’s mother is reading.On my Facebook groups I often refer to threads on the UK Justice forum. Susan could well be one of the many guests that are reading here all the time. It is not that easy to get someone to reply to a message on Facebook.
Kate seems to have believed in 'visions' too.Is the word talisman the right word, like what Voodoo believers use? That is right Kate seemed to back the dream visions in that file.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
Gerry wasn't praying, he was just in the same physical position as Muslims are when they pray.
Cuddle Cat went everywhere with Kate McCann. Why would there be any significance in it being taken to Fatima and Rome?
I think if you dislike teh mccanns as you do you will find fault with just about every word kate says....i dont see it as anything of significance
How can I possibly like or dislike someone I haven't even met!?
I said based on reading KM's PB I find it difficult to warm to her.
If you haven't worked it out yet, you will find that any potential criticism of the McCanns will bring some supporters buzzing around like flies.
How can I possibly like or dislike someone I haven't even met!?It’s very easy to dislike or like someone you haven’t met. There are some people who post on here that I find hugely dislikeable for example, because based on what they write they come across as cruel, vindictive, lacking in empathy and downright unpleasant. Not you, ob.
I said based on reading KM's PB I find it difficult to warm to her.
If you haven't worked it out yet, you will find that any potential criticism of the McCanns will bring some supporters buzzing around like flies.Pretty similar response when anyone here dares criticise anything Portuguese, you have to get the fly swatter out then too.
Sorry, are you the same person who was taking the p out of Kate’s background and accent a few days ago? How would you describe such people collectively? Personally I think “nutty” is a preferable label to “mentally ill”, but that’s just me.
Ask her to join here - it would be interesting to see if people self moderate knowing Kate’s mother is reading.
I consider my comments re KM as a Liverpudlian preferring sausage and chips to chorizio and patatas bravas and making a wordplay on book as light-hearted banter and the sort of thing I would level at myself and family, friends. And I would suggest those who disagree aren't offended by such comments per se but are seeking control.As a scouser I don't take offence at any of your recent comments - I just think relying on old, tired, outmoded stereotypes is weak game.
Do you honestly believe KM/GM could give a damn? According to KM's PB they have received death threats!
Look at the comments section from the recent article in The Sun:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10177250/madeleine-mccann-police-knife-crime/
I consider my comments re KM as a Liverpudlian preferring sausage and chips to chorizio and patatas bravas and making a wordplay on book as light-hearted banter and the sort of thing I would level at myself and family, friends. And I would suggest those who disagree aren't offended by such comments per se but are seeking control.I would happily call members of my own family “nutty”, “completely mad”, “two sandwiches short of a picnic” etc in a light-hearted bantery way, I doubt they’d be offended, and your point is...?
Do you honestly believe KM/GM could give a damn? According to KM's PB they have received death threats!
Look at the comments section from the recent article in The Sun:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10177250/madeleine-mccann-police-knife-crime/
Pretty similar response when anyone here dares criticise anything Portuguese, you have to get the fly swatter out then too.
Why a sic for baddy?... that's just another way of spelling it! Tesko's email to them about his ghostly visions in the derelict building must have gone into their 'Nutty' box. Needless to say they never replied!
I don't have any issue with valid criticism of anything Portuguese. The chouriço here I wouldn't feed to my dog. Spanish chorizo is far superior.Yes I have. A moderator referred to them as “shit parents “.
But when supporters describe Portugal as fascist, a third world country or tin-pot, then yes I tend to respond.
Have you ever seen the McCanns vilified on here in such extreme terms? I suspect such a post would get wiped sooner rather than later.
I would happily call members of my own family “nutty”, “completely mad”, “two sandwiches short of a picnic” etc in a light-hearted bantery way, I doubt they’d be offended, and your point is...?
Yes I have. A moderator referred to them as “shit parents “.
IMOThere is a BIG difference between criticising a country and criticising individuals.. Personally I think Portugal is a bit of a tin-pot, backward country with a Kafkaesque legal system but I understand it has some nice beaches. What damage have I inflicted on Portugal by saying so? None. If I describe you as a nasty piece of work, dishonest, child abuser or hider of dead bodies and make a point of repeating it to anyone who will listen, do I do you any damage?
I don't have any issue with valid criticism of anything Portuguese. The chouriço here I wouldn't feed to my dog. Spanish chorizo is far superior.
But when supporters describe Portugal as fascist, a third world country or tin-pot, then yes I tend to respond.
Have you ever seen the McCanns vilified on here in such extreme terms? I suspect such a post would get wiped sooner rather than later.
But would you call members of your own family "nutty", "completely mad", "two sandwiches short of a picnic" etc if they had been diagnosed with a mental illness?Sure, why not? I called my mother a “mad old bint” the other day and she’s definitely showing all the signs of dementia. She wasn’t that pleased about it though, truth be told... @)(++(*
Portugal is ranked by IMF 47/186 by GDP so hardly a bit of tin-pot backward country as you describe.That’s how it comes across to me, from years of reading about the treatment of people, particularly Brits who for one reason or another fall victim to their legal system - have you not read the numerous frankly inexplicable examples of bizarre judgements and treatments of individuals at the hands of the Portuguese police and judges? The Portugal Resident newspaper is a good source for such cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
What do you think our legal system has over Portugal's?
Portugal is ranked by IMF 47/186 by GDP so hardly a bit of tin-pot backward country as you describe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
What do you think our legal system has over Portugal's?
I think to say Portugal still has fascist undertones ..with an inept police force who prefer to beat confessions out of suspects rather than find evidence..... A police force in this case who failed to understand the badic evidence. Is perfectly valid criticism
Sure, why not? I called my mother a “mad old bint” the other day and she’s definitely showing all the signs of dementia. She wasn’t that pleased about it though, truth be told... @)(++(*
Need I say more:No your post, says it, all... You need to quote, an article that's 30 years old
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_Serious_Crime_Squad
I quoted two recent cases... A man found guilty of violently raping a hitchhiker received a suspended sentence
A man guilty of beating his wife with a wooden stick that had protruding nails told by the judge it was understandable, as the bible said adulterers should be punished
No your post, says it, all... You need to quote, an article that's 30 years old
And if members of your family were suffering from some life changing physical illness would you feel such name calling was still acceptable?Can you please tell me what this has got to do with the discussion? Did Kate call someone with a life changing physical illness a nasty name?
Well I would need to read more than just snippets but either way UK policing and the judiciary certainly doesn't have an unblemished past; its not without current problems and I wouldn't mind betting there will be a whole lot more to crawl out the woodwork as time goes on!Why are you determined to rubbish the UK justice system in order to defend the Portuguese one?
I could sit here for hours uploading recent cases:At lease they were dismissed! Were they still on active service and given high profile new cases to investigate pending their court case?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-36951422
I could sit here for hours uploading recent cases:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-36951422
Can you please tell me what this has got to do with the discussion? Did Kate call someone with a life changing physical illness a nasty name?
Kate cannot help her upbringing or the way she talks (unless you feel she should have gone to elocution lessons before speaking to the media). Therefore you are taking the piss out of her background and her class which is much the same as taking the piss out of someone for having ginger hair or a speech impediment or being Chinese. You either go with the flow and accept that this is all harmless “banter” or you get morally righteous about it when it suits you. My beef with you is not that you were taking the piss out of Kate’s accent per se, but that you were repeatedly doing it with the sole aim of winding up supporters on this forum, after having been told that it was annoying. And you are supposed to be a moderator?!
I refuse to go round in circles on these points I've set out my position in previous posts and I've already said that imo those who object to my comments about sausage/chips and a play on word over book are seeking control rather than offended per se.
Yes I am a moderator and not a robotic one! Light-hearted banter about regional/international cuisine and accents is not against forum rules and others here will testify to the fact that I often make what I consider benign jokes about such matters on other boards.
Why are you determined to rubbish the UK justice system in order to defend the Portuguese one?
I'm not offended by your comments I just find them quite childish
Sure, why not? I called my mother a “mad old bint” the other day and she’s definitely showing all the signs of dementia. She wasn’t that pleased about it though, truth be told... @)(++(*
At least at JBF they had somewhat of a sense of humour:Definitely the internet equivalent of "Loose Women".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3669.msg144832.html#msg144832 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3669.msg144832.html#msg144832)
Definitely the internet equivalent of "Loose Women".
I refuse to go round in circles on these points I've set out my position in previous posts and I've already said that imo those who object to my comments about sausage/chips and a play on word over book are seeking control rather than offended per se.I thought John recently proscribed the use of the word you kept using in a provocative manner?
Yes I am a moderator and not a robotic one! Light-hearted banter about regional/international cuisine and accents is not against forum rules and others here will testify to the fact that I often make what I consider benign jokes about such matters on other boards.
Hardly surprising. Neither 'mad' or 'bint' are terms which a woman is likely to be pleased about.What about “old” though? Surely the worst of the three!
At least at JBF they had somewhat of a sense of humour:I read to the end of the first page and came across this comment from the moderator
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3669.msg144832.html#msg144832
I read to the end of the first page and came across this comment from the moderator
“Why have we got this thread about June and Sheila. Personally I find it disrespectful. We dont know what their relationship was like...only other peoples opinions. Imo”
As you all appear to be having a bit of “light hearted banter” about two murder victims I can’t help but see her point.
I thought John recently proscribed the use of the word you kept using in a provocative manner?
Your post is a gross distortion of the facts:You make out as if I deliberately distorted "the facts" - as if I should have known already all the points you make. This one fact remains however - at least one member of that forum found your banter disrespectful, so your claim that "at least at the JBF they had a sense of humour" is not entirely accurate.
- I don't believe the moderator you refer to was a moderator at the time of making the post you have quoted.
- Admin then and now is a non-practicing UK criminal defence barrister who clearly did not object to the posts hence they are still accessible.
- The post you have quoted was made by an adoptive mother who refused to entertain that the difficult relationship that clearly existed between Mrs Bamber and her adopted daughter, Sheila Caffell nee Bamber, might well have had something to do with adoption.
- The posts involving banter do not refer to the murder victims and revolve around stereotypical cultural differences between northerners and southerners and other such light-hearted banter.
Unfortunately it seems this particular board is unable to function based on the high level rules set out on the homepage therefore John is required to intervene in a way that isn't required on other boards here.I have already answered this question at least twice but it seems you are determined to pursue your strawman argument. For the third and last time, this is nothing to do with what the McCanns feel or think, it was about your role as a moderator and your insistence on continuing to use a word that you know is provocative.
What is provocative to some is intolerance for others.
GA has to date been able to publish a book claiming the McCanns accidentally killed MM and covered it up despite the McCanns attempts to stop him via various legal means and courts. They have received an onslaught of bad publicity from across the globe coupled with death threats. Do you really think they are bothered about some faceless entity on a discussion board referring to KM's PB Liverpudlian style? If they are not bothered then why would it bother anyone here? As I said imo its all about control.
And if those here are so bothered what are they doing to wage the war elsewhere which unlike comments here is quite vitriolic?
Unfortunately it seems this particular board is unable to function based on the high level rules set out on the homepage therefore John is required to intervene in a way that isn't required on other boards here.
What is provocative to some is intolerance for others.
GA has to date been able to publish a book claiming the McCanns accidentally killed MM and covered it up despite the McCanns attempts to stop him via various legal means and courts. They have received an onslaught of bad publicity from across the globe coupled with death threats. Do you really think they are bothered about some faceless entity on a discussion board referring to KM's PB Liverpudlian style? If they are not bothered then why would it bother anyone here? As I said imo its all about control.
And if those here are so bothered what are they doing to wage the war elsewhere which unlike comments here is quite vitriolic?
You make out as if I deliberately distorted "the facts" - as if I should have known already all the points you make. This one fact remains however - at least one member of that forum found your banter disrespectful, so your claim that "at least at the JBF they had a sense of humour" is not entirely accurate.
John removed a post you directed at me... I hadn't complained but he obviously thought it was goading
John is perfectly entitled to override any decisions made by mods as he did with the recent image you objected to.
I was horrified when I watched a world cup qualifying game last week, England v Bulgaria, to see and hear racist chants leveled at black players and Nazi salutes. This imo is where the line needs to be drawn not silly plays on words as experienced here.
This board is completely different from other boards here and elsewhere. I still haven't read Pathfinder's theory yet which is behind an iron like curtain. My preference is that all views, within reason, should be tolerated and debated without fear of censorship.
John is perfectly entitled to override any decisions made by mods as he did with the recent image you objected to.
I was horrified when I watched a world cup qualifying game last week, England v Bulgaria, to see and hear racist chants leveled at black players and Nazi salutes. This imo is where the line needs to be drawn not silly plays on words as experienced here.
This board is completely different from other boards here and elsewhere. I still haven't read Pathfinder's theory yet which is behind an iron like curtain. My preference is that all views, within reason, should be tolerated and debated without fear of censorship.
Are there any other boards where two parents who have not been arrested.... Who we are told, are not suspects and there is no evidence against them... Are, accused on a daily basis as being guilty if sone quite serious crimes
None spring to mind but even when those accused are put on trial and convicted for infanticide doesn't unfortunately make the verdict the correct one eg Lindy Chamberlain, Sally Clarke and Trupti Patel.
Imo much of the problem lies with the experts who seem unable to communicate in unambiguous terms exactly what any evidence means and doesn't mean in a manner that lay people can understand and agree upon. This then proliferates in that the media, book authors etc misunderstand and misinterpret such info which in turn the general public pick up on. ...
I think the experts have explained perfectly well... But some don't want to accept it..there's a faie amount in amarals book that simply isn't true... But again people have believed himWhat specifically isn't true? And then what is the truth?
hehehe....dogs. I thought it would take at least until page 2!
Keep going.
Is this on topic? I hope so, can't wait to finally hear the truth.
You asked a question... Don't complain..Give me the truth goddammit.
1. If you want, an answer
2 . If you want me to list others
Give me the truth goddammit.
One member objected to ANY comment about adoption and I've explained as best I can, without betraying confidences (which btw John is aware of), why. Nothing to do with the light-hearted banter about stereotypical cultural differences between northerners and southerners. And as I pointed out Admin, a non-practicing UK criminal defence barrister, ultimately decided what went and what didn't and given the posts are years old he clearly deemed what was posted entirely acceptable.I don't really give a toss what was posted years ago on the Jeremy Bamber forum - this is about what you as a moderator of this forum continued to post KNOWING FULL WELL it winds people up. If you were just another WUM then fair enough, but you're not, you're a moderator - you're supposed to keep the peace not provoke a reaction - do you still not get it?
At the end of the day people online and offline object to all manner of things. If everyone pandered to what the minority object to life as we know wouldn't continue.
I don't really give a toss what was posted years ago on the Jeremy Bamber forum - this is about what you as a moderator of this forum continued to post KNOWING FULL WELL it winds people up. If you were just another WUM then fair enough, but you're not, you're a moderator - you're supposed to keep the peace not provoke a reaction - do you still not get it?
I don't really give a toss what was posted years ago on the Jeremy Bamber forum - this is about what you as a moderator of this forum continued to post KNOWING FULL WELL it winds people up. If you were just another WUM then fair enough, but you're not, you're a moderator - you're supposed to keep the peace not provoke a reaction - do you still not get it?
That is precisely the point.... Surely it's, the mods job to keep the forym running smoothly... Not to sow discord deliberately
It is the role of everyone to contribute to the smooth running of the forum.So having been avowedly against censorship you are now censoring me. OK.....!
So having been avowedly against censorship you are now censoring me. OK.....!
I am against censorship of case related posts eg Pathfinder's theory that has to be hidden away. This has nothing to do with editing and removing content that amounts to playground spats.OK Pussy.
OK Pussy.
8((()*/Is it time to get back to slagging off Kate’s book again? Frankly I’m disgusted by the font used which I need a magnifying glass to read owing to my partial sightedness and one of the pages gave me a paper cut. What an inconsiderate cow she is!
Is it time to get back to slagging off Kate’s book again? Frankly I’m disgusted by the font used which I need a magnifying glass to read owing to my partial sightedness and one of the pages gave me a paper cut. What an inconsiderate cow she is!
It wont fit in my bookcase.
Too bad
oh never mind when Brexit comes into play I hear TOILET paper will increase in price.. could be useful.You’re wasted on here. Really wasted.
I am against censorship of case related posts eg Pathfinder's theory that has to be hidden away. This has nothing to do with editing and removing content that amounts to playground spats.
You’re wasted on here. Really wasted.
Youy love me on here you get to show your real nasty self! hahahahalthey goad and seek a reply to goad again” - Miss Taken Identity
Is it time to get back to slagging off Kate’s book again? Frankly I’m disgusted by the font used which I need a magnifying glass to read owing to my partial sightedness and one of the pages gave me a paper cut. What an inconsiderate cow she is!
What positive feedback can you provide to counteract any negativity?That’s your problem. Why shouldn’t Kate draw comparisons with similar cases? Of course no two cases are going to be identical, but young girls have been taken from their places of residence by strangers, and trying to understand why this happens and what sort of person does it, and that it is possible to be kidnapped by a stranger and turn up alive years later is valid IMO. What harm does it do?
I tend to flit around in a book and then read it from cover to cover which I've done with DC's but not yet KM's.
I disagree with the chapter 'Missing, Abducted And Exploited Children: Did You Know' and other references I've read to missing children scattered throughout as I think MM's disappearance/abduction is unique and attempting to place it with other disappearances/abductions is imo unhelpful in trying to work out what happened.
MM disappeared from a holiday apartment which was unsecured and without any sort of continuous adult supervision which makes it unique given her age. Plus this was not a one off occurrence but happened over 5 consecutive evenings which allowed any would be abductor to gather intelligence, directly and/or indirectly from others, to abduct MM in what would have been a very low risk operation.
I don't see how MM's disappearance can be compared with say a child who is out and about on his/her own, or with siblings/friends, at an age appropriate time who is then snatched by an opportunist from a public place?
That’s your problem. Why shouldn’t Kate draw comparisons with similar cases? Of course no two cases are going to be identical, but young girls have been taken from their places of residence by strangers, and trying to understand why this happens and what sort of person does it, and that it is possible to be kidnapped by a stranger and turn up alive years later is valid IMO. What harm does it do?
What positive feedback can you provide to counteract any negativity?
I tend to flit around in a book and then read it from cover to cover which I've done with DC's but not yet KM's.
I disagree with the chapter 'Missing, Abducted And Exploited Children: Did You Know' and other references I've read to missing children scattered throughout as I think MM's disappearance/abduction is unique and attempting to place it with other disappearances/abductions is imo unhelpful in trying to work out what happened.
MM disappeared from a holiday apartment which was unsecured and without any sort of continuous adult supervision which makes it unique given her age. Plus this was not a one off occurrence but happened over 5 consecutive evenings which allowed any would be abductor to gather intelligence, directly and/or indirectly from others, to abduct MM in what would have been a very low risk operation.
I don't see how MM's disappearance can be compared with say a child who is out and about on his/her own, or with siblings/friends, at an age appropriate time who is then snatched by an opportunist from a public place?
do you think your opinion has any importance whatsoever?
It remains to be seen.
Its not a problem for me at all as I am not intimately involved with MM nor am I tasked with investigating her disappearance on a paid/professional basis.It obviously is a problem for you because you have been moved to publicly criticise Kate for mentioning other similar cases. Can you explain why this irks you so?
The only case I can think of where a young girl was abducted/disappeared from a property which afforded the opportunity of making it secure is that of Alesha MacPhail. According to the following the key was left in the front door:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6683052/alesha-macphail-missing-dead-isle-of-bute-scotland-body-found/
It obviously is a problem for you because you have been moved to publicly criticise Kate for mentioning other similar cases. Can you explain why this irks you so?
Only because I think it downplays unique features surrounding MM's disappearance which imo are key to understanding and working out what happened.IMO that is an absurd conclusion on your part. Do you SERIOUSLY believe Kate's book downplays the unique situation of Madeleine's disappearance? Incredible...
do you think your opinion has any importance whatsoever?Please stop making statements of this nature. We are all entitled to have an opinion.
Please stop making statements of this nature. We are all entitled to have an opinion.
im not against anyone having an opinion...what gives you that idea..OK that is your opinion, but as a moderator here trying to improve the quality of the posts on the forum ask members to stop picking on members for their expressed opinion.
I have an opinion....i dont think any opinions here are of any real consequence
OK that is your opinion, but as a moderator here trying to improve the quality of the posts on the forum ask members to stop picking on members for their expressed opinion.
However Carly's opinion of supporters adoration of Kate McCann is deemed a "quality post"?
OK that is your opinion, but as a moderator here trying to improve the quality of the posts on the forum ask members to stop picking on members for their expressed opinion.
Then stop picking on me for mine. I don't see how both you and Holly can support a post by carly criticising all sceptics... Is that your definition of quality.. It was goading and should have been removed
Please move on Davel.
I've suggested this was left initially... I'm happy to move on
oh never mind when Brexit comes into play I hear TOILET paper will increase in price.. could be useful.
IMO that is an absurd conclusion on your part. Do you SERIOUSLY believe Kate's book downplays the unique situation of Madeleine's disappearance? Incredible...
So what do you think Kate should have done to highlight the unique situation of her daughter's disappearance more than she already did?
Yes and I am not just referring to the finished article but the events as told. Specifically the McCanns insistence that what they were doing of an evening was akin to eating in the garden at home with the children asleep in their bedrooms when clearly it wasn't. Also playing down the fact the patio doors were unsecured.
It was the following evening, Sunday 3rd June - exactly a month after Madeleine's abduction - that Gerry and I opened up a little more to each other and shared some of the thoughts and anxieties that had been quietly tormenting us both; thoughts and anxieties that perhaps we hadn't felt able or ready to voice up to now.
We'd been sitting alone at the table, working at our computers. It was quiet and the lights were low. Though I can't remember how the conversation started, I'm glad it did. We'd talked through the guilt we felt about not having been in that apartment with the children; about having left the patio doors unlocked. How we found it hard to comprehend that we could have been so naive. We acknowledged the possibility that Madeleine might no longer be alive; the possibility that we might never find out what had happened to her. Would we ever be able to return to our home, the home we had shared with her? Maybe we should move elsewhere. Where? We discussed the need we felt to do our utmost to prevent this from happening to another child; to prevent another family going through what we going through. We have to ensure that something positive for someone, even if it wasn't us, came out of this horrific experience.
For me, the honest exposure of this buried poison was like lancing a boil. Admitting these secret fears and concerns, bringing them out into the open and sharing them with the only other person who was persecuted in the same way, made them suddenly a little easier to understand and to manage. Strengthened and comforted, I fell asleep that night more peacefully than I had in many days.
If they were only able to open up to each other about the patio doors on 3rd June then a whole month had passed when they were being reticent with what is arguably one of the most important features of the case.
Yet a, poster on this forum has done exactly the same and not one word if criticism...Probably because it didn't lead them to losing a child.
Probably because it didn't lead them to losing a child.
So it's OK to leave a child in an unlocked apt... You don't make a lot if senseYou miss the point; if a child doesn't go missing then nobody notices. Both are equally irresponsible, but with polar outcomes and probably totally different contexts. Then factor in the audience - the much vaunted sceptics / supporters axis that populate this board and the natural bias therein - is it that surprising?
You miss the point; if a child doesn't go missing then nobody notices. Both are equally irresponsible, but with polar outcomes and probably totally different contexts. Then factor in the audience - the much vaunted sceptics / supporters axis that populate this board and the natural bias therein - is it that surprising?
I haven't missed any point.... It's illogical that the mccanns have been described as shit parents but no criticism of a poster who did exactly the sameNo it's not. I don't know the poster or the circumstances, but the context may be different. I'm not explaining it again, not even for the all seeing eye.
No it's not. I don't know the poster or the circumstances, but the context may be different. I'm not explaining it again, not even for the all seeing eye.You think the context may be different ..it was, exactly the same
You think the context may be different ..it was, exactly the sameExactly? In Portugal? 5 nights running? Same distance? Same time frames? Same 'checking' regime? In May? 3 kids? Previous nights child mentions crying / being left alone? One child's supposed propensity to wander during bedtime hours?
Exactly? In Portugal? 5 nights running? Same distance? Same time frames? Same 'checking' regime? In May? 3 kids? Previous nights child mentions crying / being left alone? One child's supposed propensity to wander during bedtime hours?
Maybe you're right.
Yes and I am not just referring to the finished article but the events as told. Specifically the McCanns insistence that what they were doing of an evening was akin to eating in the garden at home with the children asleep in their bedrooms when clearly it wasn't. Also playing down the fact the patio doors were unsecured.Your post doesn’t answer my question and sets up a particularly nonsensical strawman argument imo. Once again you are adopting a well worn tactic of using Kate’s candid revelations as a stick with which to beat her. If only she’d had the foresight to realise that every single sentence of her book would be held up as evidence of some wrongdoing or other perhaps she wouldn’t have bothered, which would have denied so many people like you so much entertainment.
It was the following evening, Sunday 3rd June - exactly a month after Madeleine's abduction - that Gerry and I opened up a little more to each other and shared some of the thoughts and anxieties that had been quietly tormenting us both; thoughts and anxieties that perhaps we hadn't felt able or ready to voice up to now.
We'd been sitting alone at the table, working at our computers. It was quiet and the lights were low. Though I can't remember how the conversation started, I'm glad it did. We'd talked through the guilt we felt about not having been in that apartment with the children; about having left the patio doors unlocked. How we found it hard to comprehend that we could have been so naive. We acknowledged the possibility that Madeleine might no longer be alive; the possibility that we might never find out what had happened to her. Would we ever be able to return to our home, the home we had shared with her? Maybe we should move elsewhere. Where? We discussed the need we felt to do our utmost to prevent this from happening to another child; to prevent another family going through what we going through. We have to ensure that something positive for someone, even if it wasn't us, came out of this horrific experience.
For me, the honest exposure of this buried poison was like lancing a boil. Admitting these secret fears and concerns, bringing them out into the open and sharing them with the only other person who was persecuted in the same way, made them suddenly a little easier to understand and to manage. Strengthened and comforted, I fell asleep that night more peacefully than I had in many days.
If they were only able to open up to each other about the patio doors on 3rd June then a whole month had passed when they were being reticent with what is arguably one of the most important features of the case.
Sorry you're right... No child named Madeleine ..not the sameSo you agree different contexts?
So you agree different contexts?
So you agree different contexts?I’m running you a close second in the deleted posts game.
I’m running you a close second in the deleted posts game.
I think the best thing to do is not to post.... If moderators want to over moderate the forum let them do itOne out all out? You all hit the gate, I'll cut the top off an oil drum.
Your post doesn’t answer my question and sets up a particularly nonsensical strawman argument imo. Once again you are adopting a well worn tactic of using Kate’s candid revelations as a stick with which to beat her. If only she’d had the foresight to realise that every single sentence of her book would be held up as evidence of some wrongdoing or other perhaps she wouldn’t have bothered, which would have denied so many people like you so much entertainment.
Your post doesn’t answer my question and sets up a particularly nonsensical strawman argument imo. Once again you are adopting a well worn tactic of using Kate’s candid revelations as a stick with which to beat her. If only she’d had the foresight to realise that every single sentence of her book would be held up as evidence of some wrongdoing or other perhaps she wouldn’t have bothered, which would have denied so many people like you so much entertainment.
I'm attempting to unearth the facts about what actually happened and if that makes uncomfortable reading for some then so be it.Given that you are certain Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from the room can I ask what difference you think it makes either way?
P73:
Even if there had been a baby-listening it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening. We later heard it was an option that had been chosen by many other parents at similar resorts before us.
YouTube Vid Reconstruction:
GM: (In response to MO saying why didn't I take those extra steps and go inside) At no point other than night did I go stick my head in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=273s @ 13.26
So were they looking and listening as KM claimed or just listening as GM claimed?
I'm attempting to unearth the facts about what actually happened and if that makes uncomfortable reading for some then so be it.
P73:
Even if there had been a baby-listening it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening. We later heard it was an option that had been chosen by many other parents at similar resorts before us.
YouTube Vid Reconstruction:
GM: (In response to MO saying why didn't I take those extra steps and go inside) At no point other than night did I go stick my head in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&t=273s @ 13.26
So were they looking and listening as KM claimed or just listening as GM claimed?
I don't think they were looking in the bedroom. Kate only looked in because the bedroom door slammed.Is it beyond the realm of possibility that they sometimes looked in, sometimes not?
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that they sometimes looked in, sometimes not?
Given its never been tested in a court of law is it beyond the realms of possibility there was no checking.yes, they checked on Thursday unless you believe everyone at the table was lying, and if they checked Thursday why not every other night?
Given that you are certain Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from the room can I ask what difference you think it makes either way?
I don't think they were looking in the bedroom. Kate only looked in because the bedroom door slammed.
Given its never been tested in a court of law is it beyond the realms of possibility there was no checking.
yes, they checked on Thursday unless you believe everyone at the table was lying, and if they checked Thursday why not every other night?
Well we know on 3rd May JW claims he chatted with GM around 5A at circa 9 pm.
I think the OC employees at tapas confirmed the various protagonists would leave their seats from time-to-time but I've no idea where the loos were situated to know whether or not they were simply off to the loo or off to check the children.
Well we know on 3rd May JW claims he chatted with GM around 5A at circa 9 pm.
I think the OC employees at tapas confirmed the various protagonists would leave their seats from time-to-time but I've no idea where the loos were situated to know whether or not they were simply off to the loo or off to check the children.
So it's OK to leave a child in an unlocked apt... You don't make a lot if senseIt appears so as long as there is the regular welfare checks on the child.
Hi Davel, since you are referring to me, the following:
- although I said ‘exact circumstances’, I did not elaborate on much detail. If that was misleading, I wish to correct it by providing the following:
- the particular visit I was referring to was to a resort in Mauritius for seven nights in December 2017.
- at the time our children were 12 and 10 years old, respectively.
- they preferred to stay in the hotel room and relax, watching satellite television after a busy day filled with activities.
- many families at this particular resort had the same arrangement with their children and presumably other guests, staff etc would have noticed a pattern over the days for different families at the resort.
- the hotel room was on the first floor, not ground level.
- the front door was locked by means of a parental/security code.
- the patio doors were left open from where they could see and hear us and vice versa.
- we all were in cellphone contact, eg. our children would call or whatsapp asking us to come upstairs and bring them down for a milkshake, etc.
- they were not allowed to order room service when we were not present in the room, for the reason that the front door was out of sight and we did not feel comfortable that a stranger/s would have access to the room via that door.
- we made a request at reception that no room service be allowed to our room, unless it was me or my husband requesting it.
- as I have pointed out previously, it should be contextually viewed. Where we live, space is abundant and we are used to dining, sleeping, visiting etc in an urban home space of 3000 square metres.
- on our previous visits to Mauritius, our children accompanied us everywhere, except when they were occupied at their kids’ club. The reason being: we regarded them as too young and dependent to consider that choice. On these visits their ages were 4 and 2; and 8 and 6.
- I certainly do not regard me and my husband as irresponsible parents in the choices we make for our family, rather the opposite of tending to be overprotective with its related issues.
- I would not expect members on the forum to criticise me in the manner, as you have suggested should be done, leveled at the Tapas group.
- in fact, I find your suggestion similar to an inciting incident.
Hi Davel, since you are referring to me, the following:
- although I said ‘exact circumstances’, I did not elaborate on much detail. If that was misleading, I wish to correct it by providing the following:
- the particular visit I was referring to was to a resort in Mauritius for seven nights in December 2017.
- at the time our children were 12 and 10 years old, respectively.
- they preferred to stay in the hotel room and relax, watching satellite television after a busy day filled with activities.
- many families at this particular resort had the same arrangement with their children and presumably other guests, staff etc would have noticed a pattern over the days for different families at the resort.
- the hotel room was on the first floor, not ground level.
- the front door was locked by means of a parental/security code.
- the patio doors were left open from where they could see and hear us and vice versa.
- we all were in cellphone contact, eg. our children would call or whatsapp asking us to come upstairs and bring them down for a milkshake, etc.
- they were not allowed to order room service when we were not present in the room, for the reason that the front door was out of sight and we did not feel comfortable that a stranger/s would have access to the room via that door.
- we made a request at reception that no room service be allowed to our room, unless it was me or my husband requesting it.
- as I have pointed out previously, it should be contextually viewed. Where we live, space is abundant and we are used to dining, sleeping, visiting etc in an urban home space of 3000 square metres.
- on our previous visits to Mauritius, our children accompanied us everywhere, except when they were occupied at their kids’ club. The reason being: we regarded them as too young and dependent to consider that choice. On these visits their ages were 4 and 2; and 8 and 6.
- I certainly do not regard me and my husband as irresponsible parents in the choices we make for our family, rather the opposite of tending to be overprotective with its related issues.
- I would not expect members on the forum to criticise me in the manner, as you have suggested should be done, leveled at the Tapas group.
- in fact, I find your suggestion similar to an inciting incident.
Just to be precise JW gave the time as between 8:45 and 9:15.
I wonder if GMc flushed the toilet before he left the apartment, with his concerns about noise?
Not related to what the McCanns did in any way whatsoever then. I wonder why it was even mentioned in the first place?
Hi Davel, since you are referring to me, the following:
- although I said ‘exact circumstances’, I did not elaborate on much detail. If that was misleading, I wish to correct it by providing the following:
- the particular visit I was referring to was to a resort in Mauritius for seven nights in December 2017.
- at the time our children were 12 and 10 years old, respectively.
- they preferred to stay in the hotel room and relax, watching satellite television after a busy day filled with activities.
- many families at this particular resort had the same arrangement with their children and presumably other guests, staff etc would have noticed a pattern over the days for different families at the resort.
- the hotel room was on the first floor, not ground level.
- the front door was locked by means of a parental/security code.
- the patio doors were left open from where they could see and hear us and vice versa.
- we all were in cellphone contact, eg. our children would call or whatsapp asking us to come upstairs and bring them down for a milkshake, etc.
- they were not allowed to order room service when we were not present in the room, for the reason that the front door was out of sight and we did not feel comfortable that a stranger/s would have access to the room via that door.
- we made a request at reception that no room service be allowed to our room, unless it was me or my husband requesting it.
- as I have pointed out previously, it should be contextually viewed. Where we live, space is abundant and we are used to dining, sleeping, visiting etc in an urban home space of 3000 square metres.
- on our previous visits to Mauritius, our children accompanied us everywhere, except when they were occupied at their kids’ club. The reason being: we regarded them as too young and dependent to consider that choice. On these visits their ages were 4 and 2; and 8 and 6.
- I certainly do not regard me and my husband as irresponsible parents in the choices we make for our family, rather the opposite of tending to be overprotective with its related issues.
- I would not expect members on the forum to criticise me in the manner, as you have suggested should be done, leveled at the Tapas group.
- in fact, I find your suggestion similar to an inciting incident.
If you read the post you will see that anthro originally said she left her children alone in the exact circumstances with no elaboration...on that basis I think my question was quite valid
As the circumstances were actually completely different I wondered why Anthro mentioned it in the first place.
Abthro mentions other parents, were doing exactly the same but no mention if childrens agesTotally different context then, as I stated Davros. Kneel before Zod!
Just to be precise JW gave the time as between 8:45 and 9:15.
I wonder if GMc flushed the toilet before he left the apartment, with his concerns about noise?
He only left the apartment at 20:35 so I don't believe he went to the toilet so no flush 8(0(*
Just for clarity.
Are Gerry`s bladder and bowel functions now being analysed?
Hi G-Unit, I initially mentioned it because, in my experience, it is not an unusual practice at holiday resorts where we have been. The week that you book represents a sort or micro-community where you learn people’s names, chat and the children make new friends at the kids’s club. This is how I knew that other parents also left their children in their hotel rooms, because it was mentioned amongst some guests. Or, by simply overhearing someone mentioning their kids are in the hotel room. Where the rooms were and the ages of the children, I cannot recollect that I was ever asking for such detail and/or someone offering that sort of info.
I agree with Davel re. criticism against the McCann’s.
Me: I want to share this, please. I do understand that it is a contentious issue: Our closest overseas break is Mauritius, Madagascar and Reunion. We have been to Mauritius a couple of times. The setup is the same as at the OC. Room overlooking the pool and dining area, kids going off to kids’ club during the day, kids having an early dinner at the restaurant, putting them to bed and we having our evening meal. We too went to check on them to make sure they are fine. Never, ever did it cross our minds that someone will enter our room, taking one of our children.
G-Unit: In my opinion you deliberately gave forum members the impression that you acted as the McCanns acted. You clearly didn't, and you don't know anyone else who did.
What exactly in trying to put across an analogy of a resort vacation, would make me ‘deliberately give forum members the impression ...’? Of course no single situation and context is the same, but you stating I know no one else who left their children in a hotel room while dining, is inaccurate. Fact is, I have come across resort guests in different localities over many years, doing something similar to what I and others were doing. This is exactly why I was referring to Davel’s comment because I cannot be compared to the McCann’s. Since my child did not go missing but theirs did, I should be criticized in the same way as the McCann’s, is something I regard as unjust.
Just for clarity.
Are Gerry`s bladder and bowel functions now being analysed?
Given its never been tested in a court of law is it beyond the realms of possibility there was no checking.
I was wondering exactly the same. I could be wrong but I have never read the question being raised on some of the foulest cess pit fora. Has the UK Justice forum hit yet another new low 🤔 ?You're right, you are wrong. Let's add some context. Gerry stated that he went to the toilet. Given that we know that they were reluctant to make any noise (let's go out the patio door to make less noise), as a man, in the dark, in a relatively unfamiliar toilet, I can guarantee that there's gonna be some significant noise if he's bustin' for a wazz. There are a few techniques a dude can deploy to reduce that noise, one of which entails aim management, the other, as unhygienic as it sounds, is if it's yellow, let it mellow.
Being a bloke, he could have just unzipped on the patio and let fly. No flushing required. 8(0(*I actually think that is a distinct possibility. I would have if I was trying to reduce noise. Yes, I'm that guy, what of it?
You're right, you are wrong. Let's add some context. Gerry stated that he went to the toilet. Given that we know that they were reluctant to make any noise (let's go out the patio door to make less noise), as a man, in the dark, in a relatively unfamiliar toilet, I can guarantee that there's gonna be some significant noise if he's bustin' for a wazz. There are a few techniques a dude can deploy to reduce that noise, one of which entails aim management, the other, as unhygienic as it sounds, is if it's yellow, let it mellow.
To dismiss it as 'a new low' is a new low, given the dredging that this forum has collectively undertaken since its inception - i mean there were a few members dredging BMD databases to determine whether Pamela Fenn had frilly draws or not.
But it is surely the unique combination of factors which make up the McCann's checking arrangement that put MM in harms way:
- Dining at a restaurant same time, same place for 5 consecutive evenings.
- Unable to observe if anyone entered and exited
- Leaving the patio doors unsecured as per McCanns and others: PF, MO and JW
- Ages of children: 2, 2 and 3.
I do not see how other similar examples which do not feature the above are comparable?
Hi Holly, I agree. All I wanted to contribute was my experience/s of a similar environment and context. As per G-Unit’s post, it was never my intention to deliberately mislead. Perhaps G-Unit can tell us of the experience s/he had at such a resort and offer some insight as to what the situation was while s/he was as a guest/participant-observer?
I'm not the type of person who would be attracted to such resorts. Madeleine was excited about her holiday to Portugal, but didn't seem to have experienced anything Portuguese. All she did was spend her days in a very similar environment to the one she experienced at home. In fact she spent more days with the MW nursery staff than she did with the nursery staff at home, doing very similar activities. No rooting about in rock pools with her Dad, no boat trips to see the dolphins, no building sand castles with her family.She might have had some fun during the days in the kids clubs, I suppose, but the nights would have been pretty bleak.
I'm not the type of person who would be attracted to such resorts. Madeleine was excited about her holiday to Portugal, but didn't seem to have experienced anything Portuguese. All she did was spend her days in a very similar environment to the one she experienced at home. In fact she spent more days with the MW nursery staff than she did with the nursery staff at home, doing very similar activities. No rooting about in rock pools with her Dad, no boat trips to see the dolphins, no building sand castles with her family.
She might have had some fun during the days in the kids clubs, I suppose, but the nights would have been pretty bleak.
is this on topic?
Oh the cruelty of it all !!!!Come on, keep it on topic. Now that we're self-moderating.
The lengths some parents will go to ensure their children have as horrid a time as possible on holiday, really all just a matter of opinion though and I think this mob look as if they are having a great time.(http://www.firstclasskids.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/messy-play.png)
Come on, keep it on topic. Now that we're self-moderating.
If only, if only. What a glory it would be. But please do surprise me.That means you too. Come on, at least enter in to the spirit of self-moderation.
That means you too. Come on, at least enter in to the spirit of self-moderation.
Having said that, I'd best heed the warnings, as I've never read Kate's book, so resorting to posting smart arsed comments is all I've got - O.....M....G.....I'm self-moderating.......I'm self-aware. I'm woke! Finally!
It took the liberation from moderation for me to reflect on my shortcomings.
Yo Davros.....WE DID IT!
I was going to make a similar point about KM P.74:
Our visits also gave us a convenient opportunity to pop to the loo or, in my case, to pick up an extra cardigan.
The bathroom at 5A was sandwiched between the 2 bedrooms with MM's bed against the wall bathroom side. I don't want to get too picky here as without physically being there its difficult to know what was noisy and what wasn't and how any sounds travelled. The wood front door may have been noisy to close and lock but then again flushing the toilet and washing hands afterwards creates noise too?!
In my opinion you deliberately gave forum members the impression that you acted as the McCanns acted. You clearly didn't, and you don't know anyone else who did.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11040.msg556935#msg556935
In the UK it is part of a doctor's job to be aware of the dangers in the home, and as such they are very unlikely to make the mistake of leaving their own children home alone.
https://www.rospa.com/Home-Safety/Advice/General/Facts-and-Figures.aspx
I'm not the type of person who would be attracted to such resorts. Madeleine was excited about her holiday to Portugal, but didn't seem to have experienced anything Portuguese. All she did was spend her days in a very similar environment to the one she experienced at home. In fact she spent more days with the MW nursery staff than she did with the nursery staff at home, doing very similar activities. No rooting about in rock pools with her Dad, no boat trips to see the dolphins, no building sand castles with her family.
That means you too. Come on, at least enter in to the spirit of self-moderation.You might have succeeded but has Davros?
Having said that, I'd best heed the warnings, as I've never read Kate's book, so resorting to posting smart arsed comments is all I've got - O.....M....G.....I'm self-moderating.......I'm self-aware. I'm woke! Finally!
It took the liberation from moderation for me to reflect on my shortcomings.
Yo Davros.....WE DID IT!
How do you know? You don't do you?
Plenty of oportunities, between kids club to do all that ... and what about on the day that they went west, was it to Sagres? What did they do on the beach there ?
TBQH the whole post seems off the mark to me. You are in the land of fallacy, imo
If anyone's in fantasy land it's you, I'm afraid. I'm absolutely sure that Madeleine spent every day in the Mini Club and her parents took her nowhere except to the beach on Tuesday (or, according to the creche attendance sheets, Monday). She certainly didn't go to Sagres. I'm sure if the McCanns did things with their children during that holiday we would have heard all about it in Kate's book.
Non existent sex life was worth a mention though.What a cheap shot, typical sceptic shite though so to be expected. Keep up the good work!
Non existent sex life was worth a mention though.
Morning, fellow early riser!That’s men for you, always up for it, no matter what.
It seems only Kate was affected by this aversion to sex;
Gerry was incredibly understanding and supportive. He never made me feel guilty, he never pushed me and he never got sulky [madeleine]
That’s men for you, always up for it, no matter what.
What a cheap shot, typical sceptic shite though so to be expected. Keep up the good work!
Morning, fellow early riser!
It seems only Kate was affected by this aversion to sex;
Gerry was incredibly understanding and supportive. He never made me feel guilty, he never pushed me and he never got sulky [madeleine]
It is a very 'cheap shot' indeed from psyche's which mean nothing but ill. I am mindful of the sceptic eagerness for the failure of the marriage altogether despite their favour given to a serial divorcee.
Even the strongest of marriages suffer terribly if they survive at all after the loss of a child. Kate's writing was cathartic for her ... it was also a true account which sadly may inform and help future parents who find themselves in similar circumstances.
If a person chooses to share details of their private lives then they have to be prepared to face the fact that not everyone will be sympathetic. I'm reminded of some people's attitude towards Sofia Leal who received little sympathy or understanding for the situation she found herself in due to this case.
According to Kate McCann any woman facing a similar problem will just have to bite the bullet and get over it;
Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block. Since the first was not within my control, it was up to me to try to train my mind and my thought processes. So that is what I applied myself to doing. [madeleine]
I agree not everyone will be sympathetic... Some will be downright nasty
What is or is not nastiness is a subjective opinion, not a fact.
What is or is not nastiness is a subjective opinion, not a fact.
Of no consequence anyway, other to those who choose to be offended on behalf of people they don't know.
It didn't half cause a kerfuffle at the time. A lot of people bought the book simply for that.
It didn't half cause a kerfuffle at the time. A lot of people bought the book simply for that.
Of no consequence anyway, other to those who choose to be offended on behalf of people they don't know.
If a person chooses to share details of their private lives then they have to be prepared to face the fact that not everyone will be sympathetic. I'm reminded of some people's attitude towards Sofia Leal who received little sympathy or understanding for the situation she found herself in due to this case.
According to Kate McCann any woman facing a similar problem will just have to bite the bullet and get over it;
Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block. Since the first was not within my control, it was up to me to try to train my mind and my thought processes. So that is what I applied myself to doing. [madeleine]
It is a very 'cheap shot' indeed from psyche's which mean nothing but ill. I am mindful of the sceptic eagerness for the failure of the marriage altogether despite their favour given to a serial divorcee.
Even the strongest of marriages suffer terribly if they survive at all after the loss of a child. Kate's writing was cathartic for her ... it was also a true account which sadly may inform and help future parents who find themselves in similar circumstances.
It's more sympathy than offence... I have sympathy for the illegals who died in the lorry this week... I have sympathy for their families. ..but I don't know either
I don't.Did they deserve to die?
They chose to leave a perfectly safe country & stow away in the back of freezer lorry.
I think they were a bunch of idiots.
Did they deserve to die?
‘I think anyone who's stupid enough to climb inside an air tight container is asking for it.
Oh well. No great loss to the gene pool’.
In my country, uttering these words will send you straight to jail.
I think anyone who's stupid enough to climb inside an air tight container is asking for it.
Oh well. No great loss to the gene pool.
Without trial?
Jesus!
Good job I live in Internet Land.
Non existent sex life was worth a mention though.
An aeroplane is an airtight container... Have you ever been in one... Probably not.
People get sent to jail without trial all over the world... Including Portugal... Being held on remand for 12 months is not uncommon it seems
No it's not.
Have you ever been in an airtight aeroplane? Definitely not.
I'd like to know what I could be charged with.
Insensitivity?
Can't see me getting remanded for that somehow.
I'd like to know what I could be charged with.
Insensitivity?
Can't see me getting remanded for that somehow.
I just thought it strange... Or impossible... That someone who claims to have two BSc degrees and a Phd can't spell genitalia
As was her daughters genetalia- for those who would be interested in such a thing- Ew.I wondered how long it would be before that got brought up again #scepticsfavouritetropes
Could you explain why you criticise my post and not spams..
.
I think anyone who's stupid enough to climb inside an air tight container is asking for it.So in your opinion those people in that lorry deserved to suffocate or freeze to death. I guess this is a fairly typical view of your average British Brexit voting moron, thanks for sharing.
Oh well. No great loss to the gene pool.
So in your opinion those people in that lorry deserved to suffocate or freeze to death. I guess this is a fairly typical view of your average British Brexit voting moron, thanks for sharing.
No not really.LOL, you sound just like a Daily Wail reader.
They deserved British citizenship, council houses & child benefits. There's plenty to go around.
F*ck it, why not let's invite the entire earths population to live on this tiny island & bleed it dry.
No not really.
They deserved British citizenship, council houses & child benefits. There's plenty to go around.
F*ck it, why not let's invite the entire earths population to live on this tiny island & bleed it dry.
they dont deserve any of those things bu tI dont think any decent person would say they deserve death.I think Spam’s more of a BNPer.
We need to be much more proactive in returning illegal immigrants...by not doing so we encourage more to come...Corbyns lot seems to want to welcome everyone...no doubt you vote for him
they dont deserve any of those things bu tI dont think any decent person would say they deserve death.
We need to be much more proactive in returning illegal immigrants...by not doing so we encourage more to come...Corbyns lot seems to want to welcome everyone...no doubt you vote for him
I disagree.
If I chose to sit inside an airtight freezer then I believe I'd deserve to freeze.
Still, I've put on a bit of weight lately so I could be made into some tasty spam chops. Yum Yum.
I live in a hugely divided country. ‘Ubuntu’ is a principle that most of us try to adhere to. It means "humanity." It is often translated as "I am because we are," or "humanity towards others," but is often used in a more philosophical sense to mean "the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity."
I apologise for this off-topic comment.
Pham Thi Tra My (26), is one of the deceased. She left Vietnam on 3 October travelling via China and France. She sent a text message to her Mom and Dad, telling them that she is sorry but her journey was unsuccessful. She said, Mom I love you and Dad very much. She told them she is busy dying because she can’t breath.
None of us can comprehend what the context of this tragedy is. Every life matters. In my opinion.
Pham Thi Tra My (26), is one of the deceased. She left Vietnam on 3 October travelling via China and France. She sent a text message to her Mom and Dad, telling them that she is sorry but her journey was unsuccessful. She said, Mom I love you and Dad very much. She told them she is busy dying because she can’t breath.
None of us can comprehend what the context of this tragedy is. Every life matters. In my opinion.
Pham Thi Tra My (26), is one of the deceased. She left Vietnam on 3 October travelling via China and France. She sent a text message to her Mom and Dad, telling them that she is sorry but her journey was unsuccessful. She said, Mom I love you and Dad very much. She told them she is busy dying because she can’t breath.
None of us can comprehend what the context of this tragedy is. Every life matters. In my opinion.
Would it have been deemed better if this trailer had got in undetected, like 2 previous ones apparently did ?Absolutely... As Ive said... We should be far more rigouress with our systems to deter such actions.. But at present we are almost encouraging people to risk their lives..
‘Good job I live in Internet Land.
I'd like to know what I could be charged with.
Insensitivity?
Can't see me getting remanded for that somehow.
F*ck it, why not let's invite the entire earths population to live on this tiny island & bleed it dry’.
‘Internet Land’ nowadays may become your nemesis. You come across as xenophobic and your words on an open/public platform and forum might be used against you.
Would it have been deemed better if this trailer had got in undetected, like 2 previous ones apparently did ?
I'm not just xenophobic.
I'm also a bit racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic & generally misanthropic.
But I'm kind to animals & I love cats so I think that about evens things out.
At least you recognise all your faults
Your reply isn't even sensible. So why do that? You only demean yourself,My reply is more than sensible.. It's quite, witty.. Perhaps you just can't see it. I certainly don't demean myself
Rather than deleting all these comments, why not split the thread into the off topic section where we can continue to discuss the [ censored word ] and cons of illegal immigration & why so many illegals choose to head for the UK instead of settling in the first safe country.
Rather than deleting all these comments, why not split the thread into the off topic section where we can continue to discuss the [ censored word ] and cons of illegal immigration & why so many illegals choose to head for the UK instead of settling in the first safe country.
Would it have been deemed better if this trailer had got in undetected, like 2 previous ones apparently did ?
Absolutely... As Ive said... We should be far more rigouress with our systems to deter such actions.. But at present we are almost encouraging people to risk their lives..
Do you think their deaths are, a better option.. That's quite cruel.. Imo
Why not b*gger off.
This is a very complicated subject. The lucky ones imo are the ones who are caught and dealt with by the law. The unlucky ones are those who end up trapped and enslaved by the traffickers. I doubt there are many happy endings.
My reply is more than sensible.. It's quite, witty.. Perhaps you just can't see it. I certainly don't demean myself
The really funny thing is that I didn't actually realise to whom I was replying. I often don't. How unbiased is that?Then my post was out of place... Apologies
I think that post demeans yourself.. No wonder posters, are critical of moderation... And rightly so... No doubt your reply to me will be... Why don't you b....r off
Would it have been deemed better if this trailer had got in undetected, like 2 previous ones apparently did ?Are you seriously asking if it would have been better if these people had survived and got into the country undetected?
I'm not just xenophobic.Hitler didn’t die in the bunker after all!
I'm also a bit racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic & generally misanthropic.
But I'm kind to animals & I love cats so I think that about evens things out.
Then my post was out of place... Apologies
No one wants to talk about that. That is something else. No one died..Not much chance of cutting the Oriental snakeheads off at source, but the wriggling tails here are being dealt with...
I have no idea if anyone will be brought to book, but I very much doubt it.
If I were to allow myself to consider my own personal responsibilities then I might just as well give up. I cannot take on the ills of the world.
What a cheap shot, typical sceptic shite though so to be expected. Keep up the good work!
It is a very 'cheap shot' indeed from psyche's which mean nothing but ill. I am mindful of the sceptic eagerness for the failure of the marriage altogether despite their favour given to a serial divorcee.
Even the strongest of marriages suffer terribly if they survive at all after the loss of a child. Kate's writing was cathartic for her ... it was also a true account which sadly may inform and help future parents who find themselves in similar circumstances.
I didn't write the book,and if it was published why isn't criticism expected.I agree that criticism is expected... But criticism of the criticism is totally valid
After all publicised means to be open to public scrutiny does it not.
I agree that criticism is expected... But criticism of the criticism is totally valid
Morning, fellow early riser!
That depends if its the poster or post under criticism.
I didn't write the book,and if it was published why isn't criticism expected.I read a fair few reviews of Kate’s book by professional reviewers in papers and magazines. They were all mostly favourable and not one expressed faux outrage over sceptics’ favourite tropes such as “torn genitals” or the sexual problems. What McCann sceptics have done is focus on any part of the book they can that they think, taken out of context, will whip up anger, disgust and hatred which is why these tropes are so enduring and get trotted out with yawnsome regularity. It is tiresome and incredibly childish to do so, IMO.
After all publicised means to be open to public scrutiny does it not.
Post not the poster you being mod an all like.I think the opprobrium directed not really at the book but more at Kate herself comes from the same stable which produced unnamed waiters, anonymous passing lawyers and imagined teenagers sneaking a fly puff.
Better things to do,like watch the SA smash the Welsh.Of course, how grown up of you.
I read a fair few reviews of Kate’s book by professional reviewers in papers and magazines. They were all mostly favourable and not one expressed faux outrage over sceptics’ favourite tropes such as “torn genitals” or the sexual problems. What McCann sceptics have done is focus on any part of the book they can that they think, taken out of context, will whip up anger, disgust and hatred which is why these tropes are so enduring and get trotted out with yawnsome regularity. It is tiresome and incredibly childish to do so, IMO.
Are reviewers always right then?The fact that not one of them raised objections to the use of the phrase “torn genitals” or lamented the inclusion of a short paragraph on Kate’s sexual problems after Madeleine’s disappearance certainly does help to put things into perspective IMO. After all, no one is more vicious about people in the news than the world’s media, especially the tabs, and the fact that not one of them world wide made a big deal about it (apart from the Sun which merely used a salacious headline to sell papers, not to criticise) speaks volumes IMO.
The fact that not one of them raised objections to the use of the phrase “torn genitals” or lamented the inclusion of a short paragraph on Kate’s sexual problems after Madeleine’s disappearance certainly does help to put things into perspective IMO. After all, no one is more vicious about people in the news than the world’s media, especially the tabs, and the fact that not one of them world wide made a big deal about it (apart from the Sun which merely used a salacious headline to sell papers, not to criticise) speaks volumes IMO.
ETA: are nasty, childish anonymous commentators online always right?
Whether or not a book is good is a matter of opinion, whether it's the opinion of someone being paid for their opinion or not. Kate McCann's book didn't move me at all, and it was nothing to do with me being nasty, childish or anonymous.It moved lots of people as the majority of reviews on Amazon bear testimony to, probably those who didn't come to the book with their minds already made up that Kate and Gerry were rather unpleasant individuals who deserved everything coming to them. IMO. The fact that you could read the book and not feel anything for Kate in that situation reveals more about you than it does about her tbh.
It moved lots of people as the majority of reviews on Amazon bear testimony to, probably those who didn't come to the book with their minds already made up that Kate and Gerry were rather unpleasant individuals who deserved everything coming to them. IMO. The fact that you could read the book and not feel anything for Kate in that situation reveals more about you than it does about her tbh.
it seems some posters here can read about 30 + people dying in a lorry and not be moved...so no surprise they were not moved by kates bookWell quite. It's down to a basic lack of humanity, imo.
It moved lots of people as the majority of reviews on Amazon bear testimony to, probably those who didn't come to the book with their minds already made up that Kate and Gerry were rather unpleasant individuals who deserved everything coming to them. IMO. The fact that you could read the book and not feel anything for Kate in that situation reveals more about you than it does about her tbh.
The obvious answer to that is that those people also approached the book with their minds already made up. Whatever happened to Madeleine McCann her parents lost a child, but the heartbreak didn't come through to me although I was open to it.If the heartbreak did come through to me and to many others including many professional book reviewers, then the fact that it did not come through to you is surely not Kate's fault! The only way IMO you could fail to be moved by it is if you were convinced Kate was lying throughout and knows where her child's body is.
My reaction was not in my control, it was in Kate McCann's.
Not much chance of cutting the Oriental snakeheads off at source, but the wriggling tails here are being dealt with...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7616919/Death-crash-trucker-charged-39-COUNTS-manslaughter.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7616919/Death-crash-trucker-charged-39-COUNTS-manslaughter.html)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7617881/Essex-migrants-death-suspects-vehicles-seized.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7617881/Essex-migrants-death-suspects-vehicles-seized.html)
Indeed the real crime lords are higher up the political spectrum. And in some instances captains of industry. little or no labour costs. I have argued this cause on this forum only to be shouted down as a rascist by the 'McCann supporters strangely enough. (Of whom some belive she was abducted and removed from Portugual-Trafficked). I know I laughed at that as well.
Snowflakes would have open borders free for all. Realists know this is not viable, and ,or sustanable for many reasons.
The life and conditions these duped people are living is unimaginable to any decent thinking person. DoI believe in illegal immigration-No. Do I believe in immigrants comming legally to work and live here- yes.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chinese-snakehead-gang-hunted-over-20719114 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chinese-snakehead-gang-hunted-over-20719114)
Whether or not a book is good is a matter of opinion, whether it's the opinion of someone being paid for their opinion or not. Kate McCann's book didn't move me at all, and it was nothing to do with me being nasty, childish or anonymous.
It shows you to be an independant thinker.. something the snowflakes want to eradicate for their own agenda.*%87
Incidentally Hitler was nasty ,and evil to normal thinking people-but believed he was doing good for his country -what a huge fail-what is Stalins excuse? he killed many more millions than Hitler. He invented the thought police for that era.
I have observed an increasing tendency by some posters recently to flaunt the forum rules. There is no place for cheap remarks, sniping or goading on these boards. Do not assume that your comments go unnoticed by the admin team.
The forum rules are there to protect all users from unnecssary abuse, they should be adhered to strictly.
Admin
Some people here are insinuating that McCann supporters are snowflakes, or like Stalin, or even both at the same time - weird innit??
Why just observe? why not do something about it?
Admin team encourage it as far as I am conmcerned by allowing mods to call names of members who come to try and discuss issues. They insinuate sceptics are nasty etc. delete posts they do not agree with=censorship.
But thanks for letting us know you are observing.
I do not know anyone , from various professions, in senior positions who felt they needed to know about Kates sex life,or lack of, nor about her 'abducted by paedophiles' child's torn genitelia. NOT ONE PERSON.No one needed to know anything about Kate's thoughts or feelings, but anyone who felt they did want to know more, picked up a copy of her book and read it. No one forced them to, and if didn't realise that it would be a harrowing subject that would have had a profound and shocking effect on its author, well then more fool them. Anyone who believes Kate should have self-censored to spare these snowflakes' sensibilities is in no position to be calling others names like "snowflakes" or "Stalin", instead they really should get some perspective, learn some basic humanity and grow up.
We cannot all act and behave and do as we are told by others, who believe they have superiority complexes,who are intolerant of our opinions and shout down our right to express them .
Those people are known a sheep in wolves clothing. And so some laugh off a suggestion of independant thinking- just as Stalin did.
I do not know anyone , from various professions, in senior positions who felt they needed to know about Kates sex life,or lack of, nor about her 'abducted by paedophiles' child's torn genitelia. NOT ONE PERSON.
We cannot all act and behave and do as we are told by others, who believe they have superiority complexes,who are intolerant of our opinions and shout down our right to express them .
Those people are known a sheep in wolves clothing. And so some laugh off a suggestion of independant thinking- just as Stalin did.
No one needed to know anything about Kate's thoughts or feelings, but anyone who felt they did want to know more, picked up a copy of her book and read it. No one forced them to, and if didn't realise that it would be a harrowing subject that would have had a profound and shocking effect on its author, well then more fool them. Anyone who believes Kate should have self-censored to spare these snowflakes' sensibilities is in no position to be calling others names like "snowflakes" or "Stalin", instead they really should get some perspective, learn some basic humanity and grow up.
IMO
I’m glad you agree, you must therefore also agree that Kate’s detractors actively seek out material about Kate’s thoughts and feelings solely in order to fuel their McCann bashing habit.
Absolutely right - no need at all
I’m glad you agree, you must therefore also agree that Kate’s detractors actively seek out material about Kate’s thoughts and feelings solely in order to fuel their McCann bashing habit.
Afraid not. Not knowing any of Kate's detractors, I couldn't possibly be privy to their motives.Oh, you don’t know anyone who harps on about “torn genitals” and Kate’s sex life? Do you not read anyone else’s posts on here, or is it just mine you enjoy?
Oh, you don’t know anyone who harps on about “torn genitals” and Kate’s sex life? Do you not read anyone else’s posts on here, or is it just mine you enjoy?
Of course I read them, but I don't know the posters, unlike some of the supporters, who I understand actually do know one another and have the occasional get together.
Im sure kate isnt at all bothered what a few sceptics here think just as amaral isnt bothered what supporters think of his book.These opinions are of no consequence whatsoever
I agree! So why all the name calling for discussing parts of a book which some people feel is inappropriate at best and creepy at worse.
Some, Who actually spend days of their lives bemoaning about a word b ew k for it to be banned. I mean come on FGS. This is an adult forum for discussion and debate. Any critical analysis of the McCanns is described as mccann bashing. This is seen and known as trolling behaviour, and if mccann bashing is the only come back they have ,that says a lot about them- no argument to offer- just snipe and goad and call names.
In response to your question- no I am not going to highlight your typing and English Grammar mistakes- all of them. Because I don't care enough.
I fail to see the significnce of your references to Hitler and Stalin.
The significance is clear. vs claims sceptics are fascists in some of his posts. All the while behaving like a stalinist himself. The difference is: Hitler controlled Germany from a country in depression and debt to create a new Germany for the benefit of the people. (That was his belief and he did carry out most of that before it all went crazy) Everyone knows and hears abour Hitler and the gas chambers and slaughter if millions of innocent men women and children.
Stalin, slaughterd many more millions, he was a meglomaniac, and slaughtered anyone who dared to disagree with him , even his own government staff- he did not create a climate of fear and terror within that huge state for the peoples own benefit, it was because he loved the power of instilling fear. Hitler died Germany got some sense of normality eventually.. Stalin died the terrorised people lived on for many years! Terror of not having an independant thought or disagreeing, however gentle , on any law Stalin decreed to be.
I have never,ever said Kate should not write a book, you made that up. I merely commented on some of the contents. she wrote. and the last time I looked, there is no law stating it must all be positive feedback. and no law saying I must not say anything.
I would like to remind people here I am not here to defend parents, they are adults and can to that themselves, or accuse them of killing their daughter. I am here to discsuss the real victim in this, the one person who has no voice her name is Madeleine Beth McCann.
I agree! So why all the name calling for discussing parts of a book which some people feel is inappropriate at best and creepy at worse.WTF are you smoking? I likened Wonderfulspam to Hitler (jokingly) because he confessed to being a racist, who is utterly contemptuous of illegal immigrants and appears to be glad they suffocated in a truck, but he claims to love animals, just as Hitler did. When else have I compared sceptics to fascists? Where the hell does Stalin come into it?
Some, Who actually spend days of their lives bemoaning about a word b ew k for it to be banned. I mean come on FGS. This is an adult forum for discussion and debate. Any critical analysis of the McCanns is described as mccann bashing. This is seen and known as trolling behaviour, and if mccann bashing is the only come back they have ,that says a lot about them- no argument to offer- just snipe and goad and call names.
In response to your question- no I am not going to highlight your typing and English Grammar mistakes- all of them. Because I don't care enough.
I fail to see the significnce of your references to Hitler and Stalin.
The significance is clear. vs claims sceptics are fascists in some of his posts. All the while behaving like a stalinist himself. The difference is: Hitler controlled Germany from a country in depression and debt to create a new Germany for the benefit of the people. (That was his belief and he did carry out most of that before it all went crazy) Everyone knows and hears abour Hitler and the gas chambers and slaughter if millions of innocent men women and children.
Stalin, slaughterd many more millions, he was a meglomaniac, and slaughtered anyone who dared to disagree with him , even his own government staff- he did not create a climate of fear and terror within that huge state for the peoples own benefit, it was because he loved the power of instilling fear. Hitler died Germany got some sense of normality eventually.. Stalin died the terrorised people lived on for many years! Terror of not having an independant thought or disagreeing, however gentle , on any law Stalin decreed to be.
I have never,ever said Kate should not write a book, you made that up. I merely commented on some of the contents. she wrote. and the last time I looked, there is no law stating it must all be positive feedback. and no law saying I must not say anything.
I would like to remind people here I am not here to defend parents, they are adults and can to that themselves, or accuse them of killing their daughter. I am here to discsuss the real victim in this, the one person who has no voice her name is Madeleine Beth McCann.
your post doesnt make any sense....ive not seen any poster described as a fascist....Ive never accused you of saying kate shouldnt write a book...so you made both those up. You are quite at liberty to comment on Kates book I merely pointed out the futilty of it...still dont see the relevance of Hitler and Stalin...way off topic
Ofcourse you do not understand the post- you rarely understand anyones to be honest Davel. because you reply to a different version of what you believe is written.
you said this "Cant you see you are shouting down kates right to express her feelings."
Sounds like you are accusing me of denying Kate her right to write about her feelings, i.e not write a book. Your misunderstanding (I believe is deliberatly changing meanings to fit an agenda) are well noted.
Hitler and Stalin it is ok you do not understand that bit.. others will.
I thought I was talking your language? You seem to be sprinkling your posts with references to 20th century despots and appear to be comparing me with Stalin for some inexplicable reason, so ...
Seriously... you need to get a grip.
I thought I was talking your language? You seem to be sprinkling your posts with references to 20th century despots and appear to be comparing me with Stalin for some inexplicable reason, so ...
What a display of cry-baby righteous indignation, some of it now wiped. I look forward to wearing my warning points with pride and all for having upset the delicate little snowflakes on the forum by pointing out a few home truths.
Telling someone to cease being abusive does not make someone a 'cry-baby'.as you will agree whether a post is abusive is subjective....spams post was highly abusive...imo...but allowed to stand...was the post telling him to b....r off...also allowed to stand..yes it was
The fact that your post was deleted and you have been given points suggests that it was abusive, as I pointed out. You have nothing to be proud of imo.
I'm glad we've got that sorted out. Can we move on ?Thanks.
as you will agree whether a post is abusive is subjective....spams post was highly abusive...imo...but allowed to stand...was the post telling him to b....r off...also allowed to stand..yes it was
There have been too many nasty comments made recently but it stops now.Then why haven't they been deleted ...I haven't seen many nasty comments... Eleanor's... b....r off... was, probably the worst
Then why haven't they been deleted ...I haven't seen many nasty comments... Eleanor's... b....r off... was, probably the worst
That's cos they've been removed
Telling someone to cease being abusive does not make someone a 'cry-baby'.It was not abusive, it was factual, IMO. You were clearly upset by it but then sometimes the truth hurts. If you think I have been chastened by being given warning points on this forum you really need to think again. I am not the person who is completely unmoved by the account of the mother of a missing child or those illegal immigrants who died in that lorry, IMO it is those people lacking in basic humanity and compassion who have nothing to be proud of.
The fact that your post was deleted and you have been given points suggests that it was abusive, as I pointed out. You have nothing to be proud of imo.
It was not abusive, it was factual, IMO. You were clearly upset by it but then sometimes the truth hurts. If you think I have been chastened by being given warning points on this forum you really need to think again. I am not the person who is completely unmoved by the account of the mother of a missing child or those illegal immigrants who died in that lorry, IMO it is those people lacking in basic humanity and compassion who have nothing to be proud of.
I'm glad we've got that sorted out. Can we move on ?Sure, which part of Kate’s book would you like to slag off next?
Sure, which part of Kate’s book would you like to slag off next?
Whichever bit of her witterings you care to choose.
It was not abusive, it was factual, IMO. You were clearly upset by it but then sometimes the truth hurts. If you think I have been chastened by being given warning points on this forum you really need to think again. I am not the person who is completely unmoved by the account of the mother of a missing child or those illegal immigrants who died in that lorry, IMO it is those people lacking in basic humanity and compassion who have nothing to be proud of.
Perhaps you should do the choosing of her " witterings" first .
No, I'll leave that to those who've read her epic
It isn't an "epic"
Have you read her book
You amaze me. I thought is was supposed to be a literary masterpiece worthy of the highest awards for fiction.
Did you believe that?
I didn't.
Please don't flatter yourself. Nothing you say can upset me because none of it is true. I was annoyed by the fact that the powers that be seem more interested in threats than action. You are now being 'watched' but despite continuing to be abusive you seem to be getting away with it still.You beseeched me to stop “abusing” you - you seemed pretty upset to me. I suggest you take your fight to the mods directly, see what you can do to shut me up. Good luck!
I have no desire to slag off Kate’s book. I think it is an extremely unedifying pastime. You however seem to enjoy it, so perhaps you should do the choosing, eh?
Whichever bit of her witterings you care to choose.
You amaze me. I thought is was supposed to be a literary masterpiece worthy of the highest awards for fiction.You see, if I call this comment nasty, cheap, childish,typical sceptic garbage I’d probably be accused of being abusive, despite being completely accurate in my description. Oh well...
You see, if I call this comment nasty, cheap, childish,typical sceptic garbage I’d probably be accused of being abusive, despite being completely accurate in my description. Oh well...
Your life has only been enriched by Kate’s book, and don’t pretend otherwise. Just think of the numerous opportunities it has given you to be nasty, something that clearly gives you great satisfaction.
Not really 8(0(*, but it was certainly a waste of some perfectly good tress. IMO
Surely you can do better than that?
Boo Hoo poor you
Your life has only been enriched by Kate’s book, and don’t pretend otherwise. Just think of the numerous opportunities it has given you to be nasty, something that clearly gives you great satisfaction.
Don't forget the added bonus of getting you to come out all righteous and sanctimonious @)(++(*
Don't forget the added bonus of getting you to come out all righteous and sanctimonious @)(++(*Nope, just saying it as I see it, honestly and truthfully, with no hyperbole. It’s neither righteous nor sanctimonious to point out when people are being complete dicks, imo.
Then why haven't they been deleted ...I haven't seen many nasty comments... Eleanor's... b....r off... was, probably the worst
You beseeched me to stop “abusing” you - you seemed pretty upset to me. I suggest you take your fight to the mods directly, see what you can do to shut me up. Good luck!
Beseeched? Don't make me laugh! I told you to stop being abusive and someone removed your abusive post and sanctioned you for breaching forum rules. It's not for me to 'shut you up', it's the responsibility of those who are tasked with dealing with members who have pretty much acknowledged that they have no respect for the forum or it's rules imo.I have no respect for those who seem to dedicate all their spare time to denigrating a woman who wrote a well received and best selling book about the trauma of losing her child, who pick on every word of that book to question, doubt, ridicule and pretend to be outraged by and who are able to read it and yet remain completely unmoved by it. Perhaps I should just feel sorry for such people as clearly they don’t like it up ‘em. It may have escaped your attention but during the heated debate yesterday I too was “abused” but I didn’t cry about it or beg my abuser to desist.
He only left the apartment at 20:35 so I don't believe he went to the toilet so no flush 8(0(*
Have we reached the ridiculous level where any criticism of another poster is termed abuse. That's how it seems to meI think you've nailed it; criticise the content, not the poster.
Have we reached the ridiculous level where any criticism of another poster is termed abuse. That's how it seems to me
Any criticism needs to be directed at post content not the poster.
Most intelligent adults manage to debate and discuss contentious issues in places like HoC and on programmes such as Newsnight and Question Time without the need to make it personal.
Think Jerry Paxman, Kirsty Wark, Fiona Bruce, the various guests, Newsnight and Question Time - V - Jeremy Kyle and the baying masses.
Think of the mods here as John Bercow: O-R-D-E-R, O-R-D-E-R 8)-)))
I agree! So why all the name calling for discussing parts of a book which some people feel is inappropriate at best and creepy at worse.Could a mod here please explain why I get points for “abuse” but this little madam is allowed to accuse me of being like one of the world’s worst mass murderers ever without any sanctions at all, and the post is allowed to remain? Obviously the comparison is laughable so I don’t object to it, but what I do object to is the un evenhanded approach on this forum to doling out points. I look forward to further explanation.
Some, Who actually spend days of their lives bemoaning about a word b ew k for it to be banned. I mean come on FGS. This is an adult forum for discussion and debate. Any critical analysis of the McCanns is described as mccann bashing. This is seen and known as trolling behaviour, and if mccann bashing is the only come back they have ,that says a lot about them- no argument to offer- just snipe and goad and call names.
In response to your question- no I am not going to highlight your typing and English Grammar mistakes- all of them. Because I don't care enough.
I fail to see the significnce of your references to Hitler and Stalin.
The significance is clear. vs claims sceptics are fascists in some of his posts. All the while behaving like a stalinist himself. The difference is: Hitler controlled Germany from a country in depression and debt to create a new Germany for the benefit of the people. (That was his belief and he did carry out most of that before it all went crazy) Everyone knows and hears abour Hitler and the gas chambers and slaughter if millions of innocent men women and children.
Stalin, slaughterd many more millions, he was a meglomaniac, and slaughtered anyone who dared to disagree with him , even his own government staff- he did not create a climate of fear and terror within that huge state for the peoples own benefit, it was because he loved the power of instilling fear. Hitler died Germany got some sense of normality eventually.. Stalin died the terrorised people lived on for many years! Terror of not having an independant thought or disagreeing, however gentle , on any law Stalin decreed to be.
I have never,ever said Kate should not write a book, you made that up. I merely commented on some of the contents. she wrote. and the last time I looked, there is no law stating it must all be positive feedback. and no law saying I must not say anything.
I would like to remind people here I am not here to defend parents, they are adults and can to that themselves, or accuse them of killing their daughter. I am here to discsuss the real victim in this, the one person who has no voice her name is Madeleine Beth McCann.
Many.. Many.. post contain criticism of the poster.... Yours included... In a debate it's impossible not to make it imply some criticism. Can we expect you to lead the way now in not making any criticism of the poster in your postd
You are, also wrong about debate on TV... Boris was referred to as liar several times recently... The debates can become extremely personal
Perhaps you can give me an example?
HoC can be somewhat of a bear pit but look to the likes of Newsnight, QT and other such programmes.
I have no respect for those who seem to dedicate all their spare time to denigrating a woman who wrote a well received and best selling book about the trauma of losing her child, who pick on every word of that book to question, doubt, ridicule and pretend to be outraged by and who are able to read it and yet remain completely unmoved by it. Perhaps I should just feel sorry for such people as clearly they don’t like it up ‘em. It may have escaped your attention but during the heated debate yesterday I too was “abused” but I didn’t cry about it or beg my abuser to desist.
An example would be you telling me i would have a void in my life if I stopped posting here....anothe is a paost from Rob last week towards me
Kate believed in God, you don't.
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab, I doubt if you would do that.
Rob telling me what I wuld or wouldnt do...how more personal can you get
I'm sorry Davel I have no idea what you're referring to. Can you link me to the posts please.
An example would be you telling me i would have a void in my life if I stopped posting here....anothe is a paost from Rob last week towards me
Kate believed in God, you don't.
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab, I doubt if you would do that.
Rob telling me what I wuld or wouldnt do...how more personal can you get
I'm sorry Davel I have no idea what you're referring to. Can you link me to the posts please.
The PB hasn't been well received by all as per ratings and comments on Amazon and in fact overall ratings have been less favorable than other PB's in the same genre:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Madeleine-daughters-disappearance-continuing-search/dp/0552165158
KM isn't the only person to have suffered some ghastly trauma.
I'm sorry Davel I have no idea what you're referring to. Can you link me to the posts please.
it seems John noted them...two personal comments by moderators towards me......
i didnt complain about either of them
I think 4 stars from almost 800 reviews is extremely good.....
An example would be you telling me i would have a void in my life if I stopped posting here....anothe is a paost from Rob last week towards meKate's book is quite religious IMO.
Kate believed in God, you don't.
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab, I doubt if you would do that.
Rob telling me what I would or wouldnt do...how more personal can you get
I have no respect for those who seem to dedicate all their spare time to denigrating a woman who wrote a well received and best selling book about the trauma of losing her child, who pick on every word of that book to question, doubt, ridicule and pretend to be outraged by and who are able to read it and yet remain completely unmoved by it. Perhaps I should just feel sorry for such people as clearly they don’t like it up ‘em. It may have escaped your attention but during the heated debate yesterday I too was “abused” but I didn’t cry about it or beg my abuser to desist.
Returning to the topic.What is the principle focus then? I thought it might be whether faith will prevail.
I read the book by sheer chance. I had no knowledge of the case and no preconceptions.
I would categorise the book as an attempt at PR/image management.
Whilst I didn't formulate the thought then, I have come to the opinion that Madeleine is not the principal focus.
Returning to the topic.
I read the book by sheer chance. I had no knowledge of the case and no preconceptions.
I would categorise the book as an attempt at PR/image management.
Whilst I didn't formulate the thought then, I have come to the opinion that Madeleine is not the principal focus.
Returning to the topic.
I read the book by sheer chance. I had no knowledge of the case and no preconceptions.
I would categorise the book as an attempt at PR/image management.
Whilst I didn't formulate the thought then, I have come to the opinion that Madeleine is not the principal focus.
I don't claim to be perfect Davel. My stats show I make on average 3.838 posts per day and I know for sure the vast majority ie something like 99% are benign and case related.as are mine
Returning to the topic.
I read the book by sheer chance. I had no knowledge of the case and no preconceptions.
I would categorise the book as an attempt at PR/image management.
Whilst I didn't formulate the thought then, I have come to the opinion that Madeleine is not the principal focus.
Kate's book is quite religious IMO.
Davel I'm sure you have told the forum that you aren't religious (that might be 1 year back now).
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab. Would you do that?
Kate's book is quite religious IMO.
Davel I'm sure you have told the forum that you aren't religious (that might be 1 year back now).
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab. Would you do that?
I wouldn't describe it as religious but she was brought up in the Catholic faith which she continues to believe in despite the tragedy that has befallen her and so yes she makes reference from time-to-time about her belief in the power of prayer.Well I remember that Kate included many of her prayers in the book. OK if she does make reference to "her belief in the power of prayer", it will become a most remarkable book if ever Madeleine is found to be still alive after all of these years. If she has never lost her faith. IMO Most people would have given up by now.
What do you think the principal focus is?
Kate's book is quite religious IMO.
Davel I'm sure you have told the forum that you aren't religious (that might be 1 year back now).
Gerry fell on the ground and prayed like an Arab. Would you do that?
none of your business really robWell I forget what prompted me to ask you about your faith, but at times I have been really offended by your criticism of mine. Yet you back Kate who is a lot more religious than me. I find that hard to understand.
I have no respect for those who seem to dedicate all their spare time to denigrating a woman who wrote a well received and best selling book about the trauma of losing her child, who pick on every word of that book to question, doubt, ridicule and pretend to be outraged by and who are able to read it and yet remain completely unmoved by it. Perhaps I should just feel sorry for such people as clearly they don’t like it up ‘em. It may have escaped your attention but during the heated debate yesterday I too was “abused” but I didn’t cry about it or beg my abuser to desist.
Well I remember that Kate included many of her prayers in the book. OK if she does make reference to "her belief in the power of prayer", it will become a most remarkable book if ever Madeleine is found to be still alive after all of these years. If she has never lost her faith. IMO Most people would have given up by now.
Well I forget what prompted me to ask you about your faith, but at times I have been really offended by your criticism of mine. Yet you back Kate who is a lot more religious than me. I find that hard to understand.
I don't think it at all surprising that anyone in the circumstances Gerry found himself in would be overcome and collapse in despair at the enormity of it all.Members of churches that could be described as "Pentecostals" would have no issue in humbling themselves.
I think the description of it and the parents' distress as portrayed in Amaral's documentary quite extraordinary and puts the descriptive Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Kate's book into perspective.
For me, it remains as image management.
It is akin to picking up Antony and Cleopatra, only to find they are not the principal characters.
That split still appears to permeate this forum. Is Madeleine the main focus?
Hand on heart I would have to say that for many here it appears not.
I don't think it at all surprising that anyone in the circumstances Gerry found himself in would be overcome and collapse in despair at the enormity of it all.
I think the description of it and the parents' distress as portrayed in Amaral's documentary quite extraordinary and puts the descriptive Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Kate's book into perspective.
Members of churches that could be described as "Pentecostals" would have no issue in humbling themselves.
Unless you have experienced those sort of behaviours one could think of it a bit strange.
For me, it remains as image management.
It is akin to picking up Antony and Cleopatra, only to find they are not the principal characters.
That split still appears to permeate this forum. Is Madeleine the main focus?
Hand on heart I would have to say that for many here it appears not.
But even a crack team could amount to Tweededum and Tweeledee if they are fed inaccurate info by one of the most important witnesses. Initially GM claimed he was using the front door and not the unsecured patio doors which he later changed. KM claimed she found the window open and the shutter raised. Given the info the GNR officers received from the McCanns its hardly surprising the investigation got off to a bad start.
I don't think it at all surprising that anyone in the circumstances Gerry found himself in would be overcome and collapse in despair at the enormity of it all.
I think the description of it and the parents' distress as portrayed in Amaral's documentary quite extraordinary and puts the descriptive Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Kate's book into perspective.
Most if your post is personal and against forum rules.. I'm entitled to criticise any religion... That's a given...Remind me of Kate's claim to innocence? I recall Gerry's claim but did Kate do the same?
I support Kates claim to innocence... I'm entitled to that opinion... Anything else
Sorry but I totally disagree Brietta. The police bent over backwards to accommodate the McCanns in what was very difficult circumstances and caused in part by the McCanns interfering friends who created the circus.
The police were correct to suspect the McCanns and Kate's refusal to answer the simplest of questions only reinforced their suspicions.
Do you have a cite for.. Many it appears not... I don't think that's at all true
Remind me of Kate's claim to innocence? I recall Gerry's claim but did Kate do the same?
I don't need a cite for my opinion.
Well I forget what prompted me to ask you about your faith, but at times I have been really offended by your criticism of mine. Yet you back Kate who is a lot more religious than me. I find that hard to understand.
I don't think Kate McCann particularly wanted to bare her soul in a book.
I think one must refer to the context and to the time when Kate wrote her book about Madeleine.
In 2010 her little girl had been missing after vanishing from her bed in 2007 and no-one was looking for her with the exception of private detectives paid for by Madeleine's Fund which had been set up for that purpose.
Snip
All proceeds from it will go to the McCanns' official fund to look for Madeleine, which had been in danger of running out next year.
"My reason for writing is simple: to give an account of the truth," said Kate McCann. "Publishing this book has been a very difficult decision, and is one that we have taken after much deliberation and with a very heavy heart.
"However, in the last few months, with the depletion of Madeleine's fund, it is a decision that has virtually been taken out of our hands. Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/15/mcanns-book-search-madeleine
I don't think Kate professed to being a talented 'writer' she just did her best with the use of her diary to describe to the reader what happened on the night of 3rd of May and the following days.
So to ridicule what she has written [which is usually by those who have the belief that Kate is some how guilty of hiding Madeleine's body and knowing that she is dead] is just something that is quite sad in my opinion.
There have been the outrage 'how dare she talk about Madeleine's private parts like that' to the ridiculous 'It's all about Kate nothing about Madeleine' 'Madeleine should have a capital M'.
I would just like to ask if you were writing a book about your missing child and describing the horror of finding her missing, to the absolute disbelief when you are accused of having something to do with your child's disappearance, added to that, the continual torment of your imagination playing havoc with your mind to having the person leading the investigation write a book saying your child was dead and you hid her body.
How would you go about it? For one, I don't think you would fill the book about Madeleine, what would you say? Madeleine lived at @@@@@@ she went to nursery at @@@@@@ she was due to attend school at @@@@@ what would any of this information matter to anyone? I find it very strange that people actually want to know the ins and outs of a child who wasn't even four when she disappeared. The book title was no doubt left to the Publisher. As to the description of Madeleine's private parts being torn apart, I thought Kate was very honest there, saying 'I was plagued by visions of what a Paedophile was doing to my child' would not have cut to the very sole of a reader as much as 'torn genitals' would. That picture would be the horror of horrors. Kate wasn't showing a picture, she could have been describing any innocent child's private parts it was the horrifying picture she wanted to drum home.
To feel no emotion when reading Kates book is very strange. Maybe these people have no children and have never had the absolute love you feel for your child. When you lose them for a short time, the dread and fear that you feel, it's as if your heart is going to stop, your knees give in and you feel cut off from reality. When you find your child, the relief is over whelming. I really can't imagine what it must have been like to not find your child and to live with the loss day after day. I think Kate did well to try and give the reader a slight insight into her existence without Madeleine.
I never said you did. ...I asked if you had one.. Your post makes it clear it us merely your opinion
I think it's quite possible that Gerry never claimed he was using the front door.... It was a lost in translation moment.. Imo
I see nothing strange at two absolutely distraught parents thriwng themselves to their knees... I find it strange it being described as praying like, arabs
I don't think there's any evidence KM was/is particularly religious.OK I think we have a different view of what faith means. I don't relate it to going to church but in what she says in words.
She was brought up in the Catholic faith and by her own admission only went through a very brief phrase when she questioned such which will not please the likes of Richard Dawkins.
As I've posted previously if KM's faith was strong then why didn't she go along to mass on hol pre MM's disappearance?
I see nothing strange at two absolutely distraught parents thriwng themselves to their knees... I find it strange it being described as praying like, arabs
OK I think we have a different view of what faith means. I don't relate it to going to church but in what she says in words.
But all the supporting docs suggest it was GM who was in error and not the translators.
Who said they were praying? Not Sylvia Batista, who first coined the phrase;
Then Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Not Nelson da Costa;
He found it notable that when they were still at the main reception, the father kneeled down, laying his head on the ground and crying, at the same time as making an expression which the witness did not understand.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm
Not his colleague either;
After the search, he noticed a situation that seemed unusual to him, when at a determined moment, the girl's parents kneeled down on the floor of their bedroom and placed their heads on the bed, crying. He did not notice any comments or expression from them, just crying. He says that at the main reception the father also knelt down, placing his head on the floor and crying. He did not hear the father say anything.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
My original post made it clear it was my opinion.I didn't request a cite.. I merely asked if you had one
Therefore there was no need to request a cite, nor point out that my post was my opinion.
Who said they were praying? Not Sylvia Batista, who first coined the phrase;
Then Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Not Nelson da Costa;
He found it notable that when they were still at the main reception, the father kneeled down, laying his head on the ground and crying, at the same time as making an expression which the witness did not understand.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm
Not his colleague either;
After the search, he noticed a situation that seemed unusual to him, when at a determined moment, the girl's parents kneeled down on the floor of their bedroom and placed their heads on the bed, crying. He did not notice any comments or expression from them, just crying. He says that at the main reception the father also knelt down, placing his head on the floor and crying. He did not hear the father say anything.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
Faith = strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Which particular words are you referring to?
I don't see any evidence that Catholicism played a significant part in KM's life pre or post MM's disappearance. Afaik the Catholic church opposes IVF. By her own admission it is something she uses in times of trouble like I might use a brisk walk in the countryside and a glass of very strong Belgium beer!
What I see there is the reaction of a totally distraught parent which imo reinforces their non involvement
I didn't request a cite.. I merely asked if you had one
This level of pedantry is disrupting a fairly interesting debate.
Time to move on.
That is exactly what most Catholics do, turn to their faith and prayer in times of trouble.
What do they do in the good times?I assume they give thanks to their god for bequeathing temporary benevolence.
By all the supporting docs I think you will find are written in Portuguese by the translators. We know from kates book that when she questioned a translator the translator became quite angry. Without something direct from Gerry just we don't know
Are you accusing me of being pedantic... That is personal abuse...It could now be perceived that you're being pedantic about being accused of being pedantic.
Faith = strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.As in page #272 "God let them be wrong" they are the words in this example, but faith is the belief that that will now happen.
Which particular words are you referring to?
I don't see any evidence that Catholicism played a significant part in KM's life pre or post MM's disappearance. Afaik the Catholic church opposes IVF. By her own admission it is something she uses in times of trouble like I might use a brisk walk in the countryside and a glass of very strong Belgium beer!
I assume they give thanks to their god for bequeathing temporary benevolence.
What do they do in the good times?
But KM makes no reference to doing this pre or post MM's disappearance. It seems to me it is all about using her God in times of trouble which range from conceiving MM in the first instance to finding her thereafter.It might read like that but the test is to maintain faith while doing that.
KM makes no ref to any initial translation problems with regard to GM and the front door/unsecured patio doors.
But KM makes no reference to doing this pre or post MM's disappearance. It seems to me it is all about using her God in times of trouble which range from conceiving MM in the first instance to finding her thereafter.There's a whiff of Pascal's Wager in this - the belated pleading or renewed faith in the face of a crisis. Consider the plight of the agnostic hostage, pleading with god for their lives, almost as a final, desperate (and ultimately futile) gambit.
There's a whiff of Pascal's Wager in this - the belated pleading or renewed faith in the face of a crisis. Consider the plight of the agnostic hostage, pleading with god for their lives, almost as a final, desperate (and ultimately futile) gambit.
Are the 'religious', when not facing a crisis, giving thanks for general benevolence or mercy from malevolence?
It might read like that but the test is to maintain faith while doing that.
As in page #272 "God let them be wrong" they are the words in this example, but faith is the belief that that will now happen.
"“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.”" https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-faith.html
Km makes reference in her book to lots of errors in the translations
Possibly pray a little less.Off Topic so I will be in trouble ... don't know that one if it is recent, but I know of at least one quote from his music which I will not repeat here because I think it blasphemous but I have always known that much of his career reflects his faith in very many ways.
I'm reminded of an article I read recently about Bruce Springsteen and his Catholic faith.
There was a quote from him which is very true.
However I Will have to find it again.
I don't think KM's quote is meant literally eg page 20..."God knows where that come from..." re some childhood idea of wanting to be a haematologist."God knows" is an expression. Maybe similar to "who knows".
That is exactly what most Catholics do, turn to their faith and prayer in times of trouble.
Do you have a cite? And specifically a cite for the point under discussion?
Like a spiritual insurance policy?
So what's in it for God if he only has to listen to peoples' troubles?I see your point, but to me, a relationship with God has nothing to do with going to church. It is more subtle than that.
Pre MM's disappearance KM does not refer to religion playing any part in her life other than the normal childhood stuff eg attending Catholic schools, mass on Sundays and going along with what she was told by those around her. Thereafter she refers to her friend Father Paul Seddon marrying her and baptizing MM.
KM moved away from Liverpool during the 80's when she started her medi degree at Dundee uni. Upon graduating she then lived in Glasgow, New Zealand and Holland before settling in Leicester but she doesn't mention seeking out churches in these places.
She does say at times church took a back seat and adds it was always there in the background a source of comfort, refuge and support. It seems to me its all take and no give in this relationship with God?
Like a spiritual insurance policy?
Do you have a cite? And specifically a cite for the point under discussion?
I see your point, but to me, a relationship with God has nothing to do with going to church. It is more subtle than that.
Ok fair enough but what exactly does anyone get out of the sort of relationship KM has with God other than as she said it provides her with a source of comfort, refuge and support.
I like to think if I get something out of a relationship I put back at least some token gesture.
Imagine having a group of friends who only called upon you to provide a source of comfort, refuge and support. I might well consider them users and dump them.
It was obvious that at every stage of the process the scope for mistakes in translation and misunderstandings
was considerable.
_________________________________________
We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly.
Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the newstatements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies
_________________________________________
Just two to be going on with, there are plenty more ... for example Davel has already identified the hassle Kate had from a translator on one occasion.
I see your point, but to me, a relationship with God has nothing to do with going to church. It is more subtle than that.
I've provided the cite many times... Kate.. In her book... Says because of the errors they made new statements to Control Risks Group... Which were passed on to the PJ
Please quote a page number from KM's PB re translators responsible for misunderstanding GM's initial claim of checking the children via the secured front door when in fact what he really mean was the unsecured patio doors.
Could you point out where I've made that claim.. I don't need to provide a cite fir something I haven't said
Great. We agree.Agree on what... It's quite possible that there, was, an error in translation as Kate refers to many errors in translation in her book... So we agree on that
I don't think you fully appreciate how most Catholics view their faith which is the mainstay of how one lives daily life while bearing in mind the presence of God in all of it.
Absolutely not an easy thing to accomplish but with daily practice becomes second nature.
Agree on what... It's quite possible that there, was, an error in translation as Kate refers to many errors in translation in her book... So we agree on that
Police investigators consider egress and ingress very important aspects of criminal investigations where the soc involves the perp(s) entering a property to commit a crime he/she had no right to be in.
Do you have any specific evidence from GM or KM that translators were responsible for misinterpreting GM's claims whereby he initially stated he checked on the children via the secured front door and not the unsecured patio doors as KM always claimed and GM also claimed at a later date? What evidence, if any, exists to show that this misunderstanding was down to translators?
The evidence is that there were mistakes in the translations due to the manner in which they were taken.
It is therefore possible that the mistake was not gerrys but the translators
We have absolutely no way of knowing
How do you know how 'most Catholics' view their faith?
The same translators did not seem to misunderstand/misinterpret KM's in this regard.You can speculate as much as you like... It simply cannot be shown wIth any degree of certainty that it was not a translation error
And if the problem was down to translation why wouldn't KM/GM highlight this crucial aspect of translation which sent GNR/PJ down a false trail.
You can speculate as much as you like... It simply cannot be shown wIth any degree of certainty that it was not a translation error
It is clearly indicated in GM's statements...
G McCann Police Statement 11.15am on 4th May 2007
"As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left..."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
G McCann Police Statement 3.20pm on 10th May 2007
"Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."
"At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge..."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_891.jpg
Somehow I don't think one can blame a translator for those words.
It is clearly indicated in GM's statements...
G McCann Police Statement 11.15am on 4th May 2007
"As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left..."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
G McCann Police Statement 3.20pm on 10th May 2007
"Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."
"At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge..."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_891.jpg
Somehow I don't think one can blame an interpreter/translator for those words.
Thanks John. So I think its safe to say GM was in error not the interpreter/translator.
Thanks John. So I think its safe to say GM was in error not the interpreter/translator.
Just as he was in error when he claimed where he met Jez. Simple basic errors which poses the question as to what other details were recalled incorrectly and more importantly, why?
Sceptics lay great importance on what they see as errors yet the PJ say there is no evidence against them.. And I think it's crystal clear the parents are not involved
You can say what you like but you cannot show beyond doubt it is true
It begs the question if it isn't true why the McCanns didn't sing it from the roof tops? It caused the GNR officers to go down the woke and wandered route since they were led to believe 5A was secured from within and it showed no signs of forced entry.
I agree to the extent that I personally don't go with 'the parents dun it' theory but they were involved in as much as they were responsible for the child and failed her.
Just as he was in error when he claimed where he met Jez. Simple basic errors which poses the question as to what other details were recalled incorrectly and more importantly, why?
I know exactly why he claimed to have used the locked front door but when it was established that the key to the door had been left in the apartment then a change of strategy was required.
I know enough to know there is no such thing as a "spiritual insurance policy" as you have posted.
The mccanns reported an open window and an open patio door. It would be normal to consider woke and wandered as a possibility .
GM initially reported an open window only. He was first to meet the GNR officers along with OC employee Silvia Batista who acted as a translator.
You, I would suggest know only how you view your faith. I know there's no such thing as a spiritual insurance policy, but another person's post and Kate McCann's behaviour suggest that some less committed Catholics turn to God in times of trouble. It's something that isn't restricted to Catholics either.
You can speculate as much as you like... It simply cannot be shown wIth any degree of certainty that it was not a translation error
The translator may be putting the blame on Gerry to avoid criticism of himself... Without transcript s in English we simply cannot be sure
It can be shown to be accurate and is.that's your opinion and imo you are totally wrong
The speculation on this point is not Holly's.
Whatever excuses are offered the fact remains that;
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
If the McCanns were not happy why didn't they complain instead of signing? Complaining four years after the event is too little too late imo.
So the open window suggested third party involvement and woke, and wandered
No the window didn't suggest third party involvement since it showed no signs of being forced.
Whatever excuses are offered the fact remains that;
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
If the McCanns were not happy why didn't they complain instead of signing? Complaining four years after the event is too little too late imo.
I think that's rubbish... The window it seems could be opened without force
As a matter of interest, have the alleged CRG statements ever surfaced?If you want to speculate they don't exist and Kate is lying that's up to you
Gerry made no mention of them in his 10 May statement.
The fact you think something is rubbish doesn't make it factually rubbish.That's why I said I think it's rubbish.. Which experts are you talking about. .the three who didn't even go to 5a...
We've been over this numerous times and the experts all agree the shutter and window could not be opened from outside without leaving some trace.
That's why I said I think it's rubbish.. Which experts are you talking about. .the three who didn't even go to 5a...
If you want to speculate they don't exist and Kate is lying that's up to you
Who would you like us to rely upon on this regard?
I'd be delighted to see the alleged CRG statements. If they exist they would be most informative. &^^&*
I personally think GM put his own ego and pride before the well-being of his daughter. I think he felt ashamed and embarrassed about leaving his 3 small children alone in the unsecured apartment and embarked on a damage limitation programme by trying to play down the unsecured patio door. Hence no reference to it in the 4th May stat.
The shutters could be opened from the outside... Why would any marks be left if glives were being worn
Cite please for shutters and windows at 5A opening from outside.There's a video with petermac showing it... Heriberto on this forum has confirmed it
So they exist or Kate is lying... Take your pick
I don't think Gerry does ashamed or embarrassed - ever
I think his body language in the reconstruction doc certainly suggests he is made to feel uncomfortable at times.
There's a video with petermac showing it... Heriberto on this forum has confirmed it
Of course he's uncomfortable... He's talking about his daughters disappearance
There's a video with petermac showing it... Heriberto on this forum has confirmed it
https://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
Seems to show the shutter can't remain raised from outside.
But why the need to start scratching his nose and back of his neck?
Are you able to link me to them?
If we assume shutters and windows can be opened from outside what is the point of having them? Just to keep out the elements by way of weather? What about other properties in Portugal are they too lacking in basic home security? I wonder if property owners are able to purchase insurance for their buildings and contents?
Ser post 462
It seems Gerry thought they were security shutters when they are more like shutters simply to keep out the sun
And what about the window?
Ok but I would prefer to hear the views of those who study kinesics such as anthropologists.As far as I am aware there's no scientific basis to support the accuracy of body language
Hi Holly, you get 3 types of kinesics regarding gestures: adaptors, emblems, illustrators. Adaptors would be the one you’re looking at:
Adaptors: touching behaviors and movements that indicate internal states typically related to arousal or anxiety. Adaptors can be targeted toward the self, objects, or others. In regular social situations, adaptors result from uneasiness, anxiety, or a general sense that we are not in control of our surroundings. Many of us subconsciously click pens, shake our legs, or engage in other adaptors during classes, meetings, or while waiting as a way to do something with our excess energy. Public speaking students who watch video recordings of their speeches notice nonverbal adaptors that they didn’t know they used. In public speaking situations, people most commonly use self- or object-focused adaptors. Common self-touching behaviors like scratching, twirling hair, or fidgeting with fingers or hands are considered self-adaptors. Some self-adaptors manifest internally, as coughs or throat-clearing sounds (a second-year cultural anthropology study guide).
This has been discussed at length and it's quite possible the wundiw was closed but not locked due to the cleaners
But we know there's no evidence anyone entered or exited via the window.We don't have evidence... That doesn't mean it didn't happen theres no evidence of your abductor in the apartment... But you are certain there was one
Adapters may well indicate someone is uncomfortable or uneasy but does not tell us why they are uncomfortable..
Gerry could well be uncomfortable because as a consultant he is used to being in control
Someone experienced in such could no doubt given an informed opinion.Gerry would feel uncomfortable being asked questions.... That's all an expert... Or non expert could tell. He couldn't tell why gerry felt uncomfortable
The fact GM is a medi consultant and has a lot of autonomy doesn't mean he is always in control.
We don't have evidence... That doesn't mean it didn't happen theres no evidence of your abductor in the apartment... But you are certain there was one
Gerry would feel uncomfortable being asked questions.... That's all an expert... Or non expert could tell. He couldn't tell why gerry felt uncomfortable
If someone entered or exited via the window there's a greater chance of leaving forensic evidence behind than if someone entered/exited via the doors. Doors are designed to enter and exit from windows aren't.
Dave Barclay said in his opinion he thinks it impossible for someone to have entered/exited via the window without leaving any tell-tale evidence behind.
We will have to agree to disagree. Anthropologists and such like are experts in these matters.I think you put too much belief in the interpretation of non verbal communication.... It could tell Gerry was uncomfortable but notbthe reason why. When you can show us an experts opinion on gerrys body language your opinion we won't know who is right.. I'm convinced I am
A behavioural anthropologist would be able to interpret behaviour because the context within in which the behaviour occurs, would form an integral and important part in the analysis thereof.
The PB hasn't been well received by all as per ratings and comments on Amazon and in fact overall ratings have been less favorable than other PB's in the same genre:You are obviously unaware of the concerted online attack on Kate’s book from Day 1 by McCann sceptics, many of whom had neither bought the book nor even read it before doling out the one star reviews. Utterly pathetic behaviour but totally anticipated and par for the course.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Madeleine-daughters-disappearance-continuing-search/dp/0552165158
KM isn't the only person to have suffered some ghastly trauma.
Whatever you think abusing other members is not the answer.I did not abuse you. To abuse you I would have said something like “shove it up your arse you ugly cow” or “you’re just like Stalin”. I merely gave my opinion on your online postings, which admittedly were fairly critical. IMO you seemed very upset by the posts and demanded I stop. Just as you can read a book written by the mother of a missing child and come to an opinion about her that does not concur with mine, I can do the same about you and your posts, can I not?
You certainly have a talent for misrepresentation. I neither cried nor begged, I strongly objected to your abuse and told you to stop.
For me, it remains as image management.Hw would you have written the book to make Madeleine the main focus?
It is akin to picking up Antony and Cleopatra, only to find they are not the principal characters.
That split still appears to permeate this forum. Is Madeleine the main focus?
Hand on heart I would have to say that for many here it appears not.
Probably alcohol related imo. People often do strange things when they've had a few.What an appallingly insensitive comment.
Could a mod here please explain why I get points for “abuse” but this little madam is allowed to accuse me of being like one of the world’s worst mass murderers ever without any sanctions at all, and the post is allowed to remain? Obviously the comparison is laughable so I don’t object to it, but what I do object to is the un evenhanded approach on this forum to doling out points. I look forward to further explanation.And reply came there none. Quelle surprise.
Hw would you have written the book to make Madeleine the main focus?
Do you know him well?
I don't think Gerry does ashamed or embarrassed - ever
I'd probably get pilloried by supporters for trying to make a few bob out of MBM.I think you’ve misunderstood. Let’s try again. If you had been Kate McCann how would you have made Madeleiene the main focus of the book?
It's an interesting proposition though.
Now I've got a theme, what about a title?
'madeleine' has already been used.
I think you’ve misunderstood. Let’s try again. If you had been Kate McCann how would you have made Madeleiene the main focus of the book?
I think you’ve misunderstood. Let’s try again. If you had been Kate McCann how would you have made Madeleiene the main focus of the book?
As I'm not, that is a sterile question.You criticse Kate for not making Madeleine the focus, so I’m wondering what you had hoped to read in the book about Madeleine that wasn’t there? Perhaps that is a less sterile question.
You criticse Kate for not making Madeleine the focus, so I’m wondering what you had hope to read in the book about Madeleine that wasn’t there? Perhaps that is a less sterile question.
I'd probably get pilloried by supporters for trying to make a few bob out of MBM.
It's an interesting proposition though.
Now I've got a theme, what about a title?
'madeleine' has already been used.
I have explained that I read the book without context.
At the end of that reading, I concluded that though 'madeleine' was the title, she did not appear to be a principal character.
I have explained that I read the book without context.As the book was written about and completely driven be events that happened post her disappearance perhaps you could explain how she could have been the principal character. I have absolutely no doubt that you cannot but I thought I’d ask anyway, just to be polite like.
At the end of that reading, I concluded that though 'madeleine' was the title, she did not appear to be a principal character.
You may have those things but I would say what you don't have is a market.... And that's a rather important commodity.I think a book about the post disappearance online hate campaign, focusing on some of the principal characters, plus an examination of the propaganda methods used and the psychology behind it would be a most valuable and interesting study. Now, where did I put that dossier...
I think there, are several of us here who could write a book... I just don't think there is a market for one
As the book was written about and completely driven be events that happened post her disappearance perhaps you could explain how she could have been the principal character. I have absolutely no doubt that you cannot but I thought I’d ask anyway, just to be polite like.
Ok fair enough but what exactly does anyone get out of the sort of relationship KM has with God other than as she said it provides her with a source of comfort, refuge and support.
I like to think if I get something out of a relationship I put back at least some token gesture.
Imagine having a group of friends who only called upon you to provide a source of comfort, refuge and support. I might well consider them users and dump them.
Not every religion believes in god... There is certainly one atheistic religion
Fair enough. But in Kate's book it her type of religion put on the line.
Thanks John. So I think its safe to say GM was in error not the interpreter/translator.As long as Gerry had the key he can enter the front and leave via the unlocked patio door.
Just as he was in error when he claimed where he met Jez. Simple basic errors which poses the question as to what other details were recalled incorrectly and more importantly, why?Who claimed the key was left in the apartment. You would have to work out when it was left there. The photographer wasn't on the scene until around 2:00 AM the next day.
I know exactly why he claimed to have used the locked front door but when it was established that the key to the door had been left in the apartment then a change of strategy was required.
I think you put too much belief in the interpretation of non verbal communication.... It could tell Gerry was uncomfortable but notbthe reason why. When you can show us an experts opinion on gerrys body language your opinion we won't know who is right.. I'm convinced I am
I have explained that I read the book without context.It is how she disappeared and the search for her that is the title of the book.
At the end of that reading, I concluded that though 'madeleine' was the title, she did not appear to be a principal character.
You are obviously unaware of the concerted online attack on Kate’s book from Day 1 by McCann sceptics, many of whom had neither bought the book nor even read it before doling out the one star reviews. Utterly pathetic behaviour but totally anticipated and par for the course.
We know they found it difficult to fess up to the fact they left the children in the unsecured apartment as KM tells us as much in her PB. Plus it is widely agreed that in the immediate aftermath KM kept repeating over and over "We've let her down, we've let her down".I agree with all if that... So what does the body language tell us that we don't already know
Unlike other parents who have lost a child in tragic circumstances and subsequently written a book the McCanns don't come over as authentic imo.
But it can, it is clearly indicated in GM's statements in words which cannot possibly be a translation error. There is only one door that can be locked and unlocked from the outside and that is the front door leading to the car park. Similarly, there is only one sliding door into the lounge and that is the rear patio door.
G McCann Police Statement 11.15am on 4th May 2007
"As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left..."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
G McCann Police Statement 3.20pm on 10th May 2007
"Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."
"At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge..."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_891.jpg
Somehow I don't think one can blame an interpreter/translator for those words.
Gerry's statement of the 4th refers to "his respective key" but there was only one key. He said he used it to enter the apartment to check on the children.But unless Gerry handed the key to Matt and Kate they have to enter via the unlocked patio door. It is only Gerry who has the option of using the key on the front door.
His second statement on the 10th refers to how he exited the apartment with Kate, not the entry point for the subsequent checks.
It is what Kate is willing to do for others too. I don't know them that well but there is one detailed promise and that was that the find Madeleine fund would be used to help other missing children once Madeleine was found.
She writes a book it earns millions and she is willing to be charitable with the proceeds.
Gerry's statement of the 4th refers to "his respective key" but there was only one key. He said he used it to enter the apartment to check on the children.
His second statement on the 10th refers to how he exited the apartment with Kate, not the entry point for the subsequent checks.
Unlike other parents who have lost a child in tragic circumstances and subsequently written a book the McCanns don't come over as authentic imo.Well you’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s odd that not one magazine or newspaper reviewer picked up on this alleged inauthenticity, most described the account as honest and frank, as well as devastating and moving. Personally I think you are quite wrong.
I agree with all if that... So what does the body language tell us that we don't already know
Anyone looking at GM's initial testimony objectively can see it is full of holes and I don't think to this day he has told the truth and that imo is why he starts scratching his nose and back of his neck.
Gerry's statement of the 4th refers to "his respective key" but there was only one key. He said he used it to enter the apartment to check on the children.
His second statement on the 10th refers to how he exited the apartment with Kate, not the entry point for the subsequent checks.
But unless Gerry handed the key to Matt and Kate they have to enter via the unlocked patio door. It is only Gerry who has the option of using the key on the front door.Matt & Kate both said they entered via the open patio door. Gerry having the key to the front door didn't change that. On previous evenings & during the day the front door had been Gerry's point of exit.
As long as Gerry had the key he can enter the front and leave via the unlocked patio door.
By his initial testimony are you referring to the twice translated non verbatim statement.. You have your opinion snd I think you are miles from the truth
I'm not sure what this has to do with GM claiming he left the apartment via the front door after his 9 pm ish check when in fact he left via the patio doors?
What has KM done for others?It sounds like royalties are coming in every year.
I'm not sure where you get millions from? If MM is found and the fund has surplus to requirement funds what else could she use the funds for without it turning into a complete PR disaster?
No idea how reliable the following is but it seems the royalties could be used to fund their ongoing legal war with GA.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6581173/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-Kate-Gerry-saving-85-000-royalties-mothers-book.html
Whereas, I have no idea as to why you are repeating the same question over and over, like.Just as I predicted, another non answer, many thanks. The simple fact is you want Madeleine to be the main focus of the book but when pushed to explain how you are completely unable to. So, criticism for criticism’s sake.
I've answered. Time to move on.
I'm not sure what this has to do with GM claiming he left the apartment via the front door after his 9 pm ish check when in fact he left via the patio doors?I read Gerry's 4th May statement again and it doesn't mention how he left. What words do you think he made?
Just as I predicted, another non answer, many thanks. The simple fact is you want Madeleine to be the main focus of the book but when pushed to explain how you are completely unable to. So, criticism for criticism’s sake.
I've answered. &^^&*&^&*%
Save 10615 for something more constructive.
Quite a simple mistake for thr translator to make
But there are so many contradictions and inconsistencies that they can't all be blamed on the translator.Without the mccanns English statements.. We don't know what they said
I read Gerry's 4th May statement again and it doesn't mention how he left. What words do you think he made?
Without the mccanns English statements.. We don't know what they said
Yes we do. We have a variety of testimony from a wide range of sources including their own words on video.
4th MayI read that bit but where does it say Gerry left via the front door?
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.
10th May
At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge,
Gerry's statement of the 4th refers to "his respective key" but there was only one key. He said he used it to enter the apartment to check on the children.
His second statement on the 10th refers to how he exited the apartment with Kate, not the entry point for the subsequent checks.
This thread was started with the express intention of criticising Kate McCann for using the word “mad” to describe some of the mail the McCanns received from members of the public. I mean, just how snowflakey and politically correct can you get??! Is “mad” now a proscribed word, along with “black”, “fat” and “he/she”?
And supporters get accused of being Stalin-like snowflakes! Jesu.
This thread was started with the express intention of criticising Kate McCann for using the word “mad” to describe some of the mail the McCanns received from members of the public. I mean, just how snowflakey and politically correct can you get??! Is “mad” now a proscribed word, along with “black”, “fat” and “he/she”?
And supporters get accused of being Stalin-like snowflakes! Jesu.
I started the thread to discuss the contents of the PB. Much the same way that I started a thread to discuss the PB written by DC.
KM used the word 'mad' to describe those suffering mental illness.
I started the thread to discuss the contents of the PB. Much the same way that I started a thread to discuss the PB written by DC.Did she - I thought it wad the letters she was describing in such a way. Have you got a cite?
KM used the word 'mad' to describe those suffering mental illness.
Did she - I thought it wad the letters she was describing in such a way. Have you got a cite?
In my opinion and that of the dictionary that is the recognised definition of 'mad'.
Did she - I thought it wad the letters she was describing in such a way. Have you got a cite?
The dictionary also defines my genitalia as c**t!
Mad and nutty used to describe the mentally ill. She's lucky it fell under the radar.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg558772#msg558772
Really?? My dictionary doesn't.
The dictionary also defines my genitalia as c**t!
Under what radar ???
Perhaps certain passages in Kate's book mean a lot more to some than to others particularly when quoted out of context.
Who can ever forget the "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" outrage ... or was it "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" ???
A reeally important part of a book describing the real life disappearance of a little girl ... I think not. but there are those who do.
Yes really!
The dictionary contains all sorts of words that many deem offensive and archaic.
I would not have expected KM, as a highly qualified medi practitioner to refer to those suffering from mental illness as 'mad' and 'nutty'.
Was there any need for that?
Actually you are wrong in all counts in my opinion.
You have already been asked by another member to provide a cite supporting your statements ... I think it would be good if you would comply.
In my opinion you are systematically putting your own interpretation into Kate's writing which was never there in the first instance.
Unless you can explain how Kate putting correspondence into the "nutty box" becomes her calling individuals "nutty"?
Mental health charities, British Medical Assoc (BMA) etc.
It shows someone who is somewhat judgemental which by her own admission she is.
A little girl who in all probability would not have disappeared had her parents not been so reckless.
Just because the dictionary provides the definition of a word doesn't mean to say its appropriate to use.
You thinking I'm wrong doesn't make me so.
I have complied. P. 379.
Its not open to interpretation. Its there in black and white.
Then why do so in this case? you have just grossly offended me.So delete it.
Then why do so in this case? you have just grossly offended me.
I started the thread to discuss the contents of the PB. Much the same way that I started a thread to discuss the PB written by DC.
KM used the word 'mad' to describe those suffering mental illness.
As The General said delete it but anyway you agree that the dictionary contains all sorts of words that many find offensive ie just because the dictionary contains the definition of a word does not mean it is appropriate to use eg 'mad' for the mentally ill?
You have not complied until you have provided the quote which you attribute to Kate. Your opinion doesn't count, it needs a quote something along the lines of TD/TD or P will do.
KM's labelling of her mail boxes:You have misunderstood.
- Information/for follow up
- Well-wishers
- Psychics/Dowsers/Visions
- Nasty
- Nutty
"The nonsensical letters destined for the 'Nutty' Box, have arrived fairly consistently.
"And then there are those it is impossible to be sure about whose correspondence goes into the 'Nutty' box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering from mental illness, and I don't want to make light of their problems. Indeed it is concerning, if our mail is anything to go by, how many vulnerable individuals there see to be out there with psychiatric conditions that remain either undiagnosed or nadequately treated".
Not labelling them in disparaging terms might be a start.
You seriously think there is a comparison?
You have misunderstood.
Kate is labelling the theories as nutty... Not the people who have sent them... She points this out clearly when she says not all in the nutty box came from the mentally I'll. You are just interpreting it in a negative light... Imo
You stating I have misunderstood something doesn't make it so.
Why would a qualified medi doctor and former GP describe theories sent to her in confidence and good faith by the mentally ill as 'nutty'?
she described the theories as nutty...as she points out the nutty theories were not sent specifically by the mentally ill..
the mentally ill may well have sent some very good theories too..at least you none accept it was the theories she refferrred to not the people
I've accepted nothing of the sort. Why would a medi doc/GP want to go anywhere near referring to the mentally ill as 'nutty'. If she labelled her box in such a way why the need to write about it in her book?
If the mentally ill sent in some good theories then no doubt these went in the box labelled up 'Information/For Follow Up'.
KM's labelling of her mail boxes:
- Information/for follow up
- Well-wishers
- Psychics/Dowsers/Visions
- Nasty
- Nutty
"The nonsensical letters destined for the 'Nutty' Box, have arrived fairly consistently.
"And then there are those it is impossible to be sure about whose correspondence goes into the 'Nutty' box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering from mental illness, and I don't want to make light of their problems. Indeed it is concerning, if our mail is anything to go by, how many vulnerable individuals there see to be out there with psychiatric conditions that remain either undiagnosed or nadequately treated".
Not labelling them in disparaging terms might be a start.
You stating I have misunderstood something doesn't make it so.
Why would a qualified medi doctor and former GP describe theories sent to her in confidence and good faith by the mentally ill as 'nutty'?
I notice that Kate McCann distinguishes between 'nutty' and 'nasty' letters; the 'nutty' ones are described as 'nonsensical'. She doesn't elaborate much on what this nonsense consists of, but she does mention facts, figures and symbols;
Within days of Madeleine’s disappearance, several people with major psychiatric problems made their way over to Praia da Luz and somehow managed to get to see Gerry and me. In spite of the state we were in, we found it hard to ignore anybody who was trying to help, even if what they were telling us was complete nonsense. Some of them were very persistent: they would track us down again and again, wielding their piles of papers full of totally
illogical ‘facts’, figures and symbols. It was draining and at times a little scary. [madeleine]
I wonder how the press, desperate for stories, missed this parade of seriously disturbed people beating a path to the McCann's door?
Weren't the press also part of the people beating a path to the McCann's door?
Certainly an indication of exactly why steps had to be taken to address the problems faced by victims of a heinous crime in a foreign land.
The press were camped outside the McCann's door if the photos are to be believed; that's why the barrister and whoever he came with were told to be inconspicuous.
What steps were taken to address problems? How did these people get through anyway?
Which 'major psychiatric problems' drive people to go to Portugal within days to find the parents of a disappeared child?
Obviously I have no idea what correspondence ended up in the 'nutty' box but I have read quite a lot on social media which very likely should have found a niche alongside them.
Who said anything about 'theories'? Certainly not Kate in her book ... I think that may be just another invention you have come up with ... unless you have a cite.
I was amazed when I arrived at chapter 20 to find it entitled 'The good, the bad and the mad; the mad referring to those suffering mental illness. Somewhat worrying to hear such a label given to the mentally ill by a medi doctor and former GP who goes on to explain correspondence received from such individuals went into the 'Nutty' box. (Page 379).
Weren't the press also part of the people beating a path to the McCann's door?Let's keep it on topic, guys.
Certainly an indication of exactly why steps had to be taken to address the problems faced by victims of a heinous crime in a foreign land.
See Davel's post #563
Is there the slightest chance you would be able to find something to criticise or even praise Kate for which actually appears within the pages of her book? That way we will be able to at least pay lip service to staying on the supposed topic of the thread. Thank you.
... and Davel is quoted in Kate's book where??? I'm afraid you will have to point it out as I appear to have missed it.
For information : an appropriate way of indicating a post is I believe ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg559734#msg559734 rather than # which is rendered next to useless should a swatch of OT posts be deleted.
you have failed to provide a cite showing kate referred to the mentally ill as mad or nutty. As I pointed out she was referring to theories sent in....
Is there the slightest chance you would be able to find something to criticise or even praise Kate for which actually appears within the pages of her book? That way we will be able to at least pay lip service to staying on the supposed topic of the thread. Thank you.
you have failed to provide a cite showing kate referred to the mentally ill as mad or nutty. As I pointed out she was referring to theories sent in....Let's say you're right (and you usually are), does labelling the theory as 'nutty' automatically determine that the author is equally 'nutty'? Does Kate hold contempt for the theory or the author? Or both? Can a 'nutty' theory, written in good faith, be authored by a sane person? Would a 'nutty' person be able to come up with a cogent, plausible theory that passes muster? Madness is in many respects the inverted mirror of the developed consciousness, incorporating the structures of rationality within a different construction of the relation between the self and its world. Considering this framework, can we correlate the madness of the self with the output / outward manifestation?
You saying I have failed at something doesn't make it so.
Let's say you're right (and you usually are), does labelling the theory as 'nutty' automatically determine that the author is equally 'nutty'? Does Kate hold contempt for the theory or the author? Or both? Can a 'nutty' theory, written in good faith, be authored by a sane person? Would a 'nutty' person be able to come up with a cogent, plausible theory that passes muster? Madness is in many respects the inverted mirror of the developed consciousness, incorporating the structures of rationality within a different construction of the relation between the self and its world. Considering this framework, can we correlate the madness of the self with the output / outward manifestation?
If you read Kates post she says only some of the nutty posts cam from the mentally I'll... So some came from perfectly sane......or.....is she then making the distinction that only the nutty ones came from the mentally ill, with the balance being reasonable theories, albeit simply misguided?
Could a mentally ill person produce a sane theory.... Of course... A biploar person... Shut that bloody noise up... May function very well and produce ⚡flashes of pure brilliance
you have failed to provide a cite showing kate referred to the mentally ill as mad or nutty. As I pointed out she was referring to theories sent in....
She certainly referred to people with major psychiactric problems turning up in Luz with 'nonsense' facts, figures and symbols. I assume those went into her 'nutty' box.Wasn't the concept of 'woke and wandered' met with similar derision and incredulity? The phrase coined escapes me.
Wasn't the concept of 'woke and wandered' met with similar derision and incredulity? The phrase coined escapes me.
A fairly reasonable initial theory / assumption given the apparent 'evidence'.
Guilhermino Encarnaçăo had briefly mentioned three potential explanations for Madeleine’s disappearance: a'Always found'. So why bother searching initially then? Who automatically jumps to abduction in that moment? Who's 'nutty' now?
burglary that had ‘changed direction’, abduction and the possibility that she had wandered off by herself...
I have always found the third suggestion insulting to our intelligence, frankly.
[madeleine, Chapter 7; Aftermath.]
....or.....is she then making the distinction that only the nutty ones came from the mentally ill, with the balance being reasonable theories, albeit simply misguided?She says not all of the ones in the nutty box came from the mentally ill
She says not all of the ones in the nutty box came from the mentally illSo some sane people sent some nutty ones?
So some sane people sent some nutty ones?Yes
YesSo does she specify whether any decent ones came from 'nutty' people?
So does she specify whether any decent ones came from 'nutty' people?
And how would she know which of the 'nutty' ones came from sane people?
If you read what she said I'm sure you will be able to answer all those questions yourselfI believe the term in dominos is 'check mate'. She couldn't possibly know which of the 'nutty' theories came from sane people, which you admit must have occurred, ergo, she is labelling all 'nutty' theories as coming from nutty people.
I believe the term in dominos is 'check mate'. She couldn't possibly know which of the 'nutty' theories came from sane people, which you admit must have occurred, ergo, she is labelling all 'nutty' theories as coming from nutty people.
Besides, I'm not reading it.
If you read it you would see you are wrongI'm right.
I'm right.
I'm not sure I have the constitution to read some self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, Janet and John / Mills and Boon, semi-fictional, ghost-written, charity shop two-bob tat account.
I'm right.
I'm not sure I have the constitution to read some self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, Janet and John / Mills and Boon, semi-fictional, ghost-written, charity shop two-bob tat account.
'Always found'. So why bother searching initially then? Who automatically jumps to abduction in that moment? Who's 'nutty' now?
Wow!You see, Ern, I have an innate mistrust of Amazon book reviews. Not because of fraudulence per se, but because the very fact that a. someone has bought the book and b. deemed it necessary to leave a review, automatically taints impartiality, as the vast majority will be familiar with the case and sympathise, and the majority of the remainder will be suitably moved by the emotive content, given their position in the demographic who are drawn to buying the book in the first instance.
You should do book reviews on Amazon.
Many do so and also without reading the book.
'Always found'. So why bother searching initially then? Who automatically jumps to abduction in that moment? Who's 'nutty' now?
You see, Ern, I have an innate mistrust of Amazon book reviews. Not because of fraudulence per se, but because the very fact that a. someone has bought the book and b. deemed it necessary to leave a review, automatically taints impartiality, as the vast majority will be familiar with the case and sympathise, and the majority of the remainder will be suitably moved by the emotive content, given their position in the demographic who are drawn to buying the book in the first instance.
According to Kate she, as opposed to the PJ, had the intelligence required to work out what happened.I'd go one further. It would be illogical to consider anything else at that stage - window or no window. You'd be going scatty running around like a nutty person searching everywhere. Unless you were too intelligent, of course.
Reasons to reject woke and wandered.
1. Jane Tanner's sighting.
2. The open window and shutters, which Madeleine couldn't have managed.
3. The patio doors, child gate and garden gate being closed.
4. She knew Madeleine well enough to know she wouldn't wander off.
[madeleine chapter 7]
In my opinion that may all make sense to Kate McCann, but not necessarily to anyone else. It has nothing to do with intelligence either.
1. The Tanner sighting was highly likely to be a red herring, it transpires.
2, 3 & 4. Madeleine wouldn't be the first child to surprise her parents with her capabilities.
The McCann's friends, Mark Warner staff, the local people and the Portuguese Police were correct to make searching PdL their first priority imo.
I'm very pleased to report that although I have bought many a book from Amazon, including Kate's book, as of yet I have never been inclined to publish a review .Yeh, I've bought many books from Amazon, it's great. I've also never left a review. Which sort of reinforces my point - a certain demographic will be moved to buy the book, then subsequently leave any review. I have no data to support this, but the I assume the overwhelming majority of sceptics won't buy it, for fear of swelling the McCann coffers - so the review data is automatically biased and tainted.
Yeh, I've bought many books from Amazon, it's great. I've also never left a review. Which sort of reinforces my point - a certain demographic will be moved to buy the book, then subsequently leave any review. I have no data to support this, but the I assume the overwhelming majority of sceptics won't buy it, for fear of swelling the McCann coffers - so the review data is automatically biased and tainted.
Have you read the book which is the focus of this thread?No. For fear of swelling the McCann coffers. Joking. No, I haven't. I'll be honest, I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing. I've obviously seen many excerpts posted here. It's terribly remiss of me to espouse some knowledge of the case without comprehensive reading, I understand that, but so be it.
No. For fear of swelling the McCann coffers. Joking. No, I haven't. I'll be honest, I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing. I've obviously seen many excerpts posted here. It's terribly remiss of me to espouse some knowledge of the case without comprehensive reading, I understand that, but so be it.
Having said that, I read Amaral's book and thought it was rubbish.
I have read Kate's book, still have it.
I didn't find anything funny, nor screamingly objectionable as in Tweedledum/Tweedlee/ plummy voice/reference to genitilia etc.
Perhaps I should study it further.
Mad and nutty used to describe the mentally ill. She's lucky it fell under the radar.Nope, that won’t do. Try again, highlighting specifically where she refers to mentally ill people as mad.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg558772#msg558772
You stating I have misunderstood something doesn't make it so.Because they are? Since when has “nutty” been an offensive term? Are you mentally ill or just expressing faux indignation on behalf of those who are?
Why would a qualified medi doctor and former GP describe theories sent to her in confidence and good faith by the mentally ill as 'nutty'?
Yeh, I've bought many books from Amazon, it's great. I've also never left a review. Which sort of reinforces my point - a certain demographic will be moved to buy the book, then subsequently leave any review. I have no data to support this, but the I assume the overwhelming majority of sceptics won't buy it, for fear of swelling the McCann coffers - so the review data is automatically biased and tainted.How so?
How so?You mean why do I think we can't rely on the reviews?
You mean why do I think we can't rely on the reviews?Except that this book received hundreds of reviews by individuals determined to rubbish it before they’d even read it. I saw this with my own eyes, as the clarion call went out around Scepticland on day of publishing to go to Amazon to leave a one star review. So yes, you’re right in one respect, the reviews for this particular book cannot be trusted because many of them were left by those engaged in a hate campaign against the McCanns. A similar thing happened to the Summers and Swan book which I don’t suppose you’ve read either as it wouldn’t help to reinforce your biased views.
As I said, the very fact that a certain person, in the main, will buy the book from a relatively specific demographic - female, middle-aged, supporter, mother / maternal - skews the data.
I dare say the same is at play with George R. R. Martin's reviews - his fans are skewing the data because they all think all the books are amazing, whether they are or not.
It's a barometer, granted, but I wouldn't hang a hat on it. I haven't even factored in the endemic fraudulence of most online review mechanisms.
Now that's what I call above and beyond the call of duty
YesYou're guessing at best.
There are some here who seem to be working towards a Master's degree in the study of said book.I’ll say, and the funny thing is, it’s most devoted schooars are all of the sceptic persuasion, or at least of the “Kate’s book is a pack if lies and full of hatred of the mentally ill” persuasion.
Except that this book received hundreds of reviews by individuals determined to rubbish it before they’d even read it. I saw this with my own eyes, as the clarion call went out around Scepticland on day of publishing to go to Amazon to leave a one star review. So yes, you’re right in one respect, the reviews for this particular book cannot be trusted because many of them were left by those engaged in a hate campaign against the McCanns. A similar thing happened to the Summers and Swan book which I don’t suppose you’ve read either as it wouldn’t help to reinforce your biased views.This clarion call seems to have had little impact then, given this overwhelmingly positive review set.
You're guessing at best.No Kate confirms it... It's in hollys quote.. Read it
This clarion call seems to have had little impact then, given this overwhelmingly positive review set.The hate campaign was certainly more effective with the Summers and Swan book, I guess because it sold in fewer numbers than Kate’s so had fewer genuine reviews. It’s not a bad book at all, it brings much of the detail together in one place, it just really upsets some people who just can’t get their heads around the idea that the McCanns did not toss their child’s body in the garbage.
I stand by my assertion that most online review mechanisms are fundamentally flawed and in many different ways.
Summer and Swan? If the Netflix documentary is any indicator, then I wouldn't get to the end of that either (short attention span, low patience threshold)
This clarion call seems to have had little impact then, given this overwhelmingly positive review set.
I stand by my assertion that most online review mechanisms are fundamentally flawed and in many different ways.
Summer and Swan? If the Netflix documentary is any indicator, then I wouldn't get to the end of that either (short attention span, low patience threshold)
No Kate confirms it... It's in hollys quote.. Read itKate was guessing (assuming) and so were you. You agreed with the statement/question: "So some sane people sent some nutty ones?" An assumption is a type of guess isn't it?
goes into the 'Nutty' box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering from mental
There a flaw in your reasoning.. If it was true all books would have a 4 or 5 star, rating.....and that, Davros, is what they call in chess 'Yahtzee'.
Kate was guessing (assuming) and so were you. You agreed with the statement/question: "So some sane people sent some nutty ones?" An assumption is a type of guess isn't it?Def one for the nutty bin
I wonder what she thought of the Prank Theory?
....and that, Davros, is what they call in chess 'Yahtzee'.They must have a happy family!
Not necessarily, if a book only has 5 reviews, all from family members of the author - it's got 5 stars, must be amazing.
Kate was guessing (assuming) and so were you. You agreed with the statement/question: "So some sane people sent some nutty ones?" An assumption is a type of guess isn't it?
I wonder what she thought of the Prank Theory?
I'm commenting on kates opinion... She didn't assume all the nutty ones came from mentally I'll... That's not a guess.. It's kates opinion"So some sane people sent some nutty ones?" Were they Kate's words?
"So some sane people sent some nutty ones?" Were they Kate's words?I'm really not bothered rob... It's of no real importance
I'm really not bothered rob... It's of no real importanceFair enough. At least I was right!
I'm really not bothered rob... It's of no real importance
Fair enough. At least I was right!Rob and The General share a virtual, online exploding fist bump, thus deposing Davros from his virtual, online perch. [Davros slinks back to his hermetically sealed life-chamber to recharge his brain, vowing vengeance on his two virtual,online nemeses, 'I'll get you The General, I'll get you Robittybobitty, see if I don't....mwuhahahahahahahaha....haha....ahem.....']
Rob and The General share a virtual, online exploding fist bump, thus deposing Davros from his virtual, online perch. [Davros slinks back to his hermetically sealed life-chamber to recharge his brain, vowing vengeance on his two virtual,online nemeses, 'I'll get you The General, I'll get you Robittybobitty, see if I don't....mwuhahahahahahahaha....haha....ahem.....']
Is this on topic?
No.Yeh, thought not.
Rob and The General share a virtual, online exploding fist bump, thus deposing Davros from his virtual, online perch. [Davros slinks back to his hermetically sealed life-chamber to recharge his brain, vowing vengeance on his two virtual,online nemeses, 'I'll get you The General, I'll get you Robittybobitty, see if I don't....mwuhahahahahahahaha....haha....ahem.....']Slightly as Kate did mention in her book what she does with correspondence from nutters.
Is this on topic?
Yeh, thought not.Now THAT’S a book I’ve not read. Any good?
I've reported myself.
And lopped off a digit.
....soooooo, Kate's book. Wow, 4 stars, eh? Slightly less than The Koran.
Now THAT’S a book I’ve not read. Any good?Meh, take it or leave it. Not a page turner. Funny as.......
Meh, take it or leave it. Not a page turner. Funny as.......two stars then.
Kate was guessing (assuming) and so were you. You agreed with the statement/question: "So some sane people sent some nutty ones?" An assumption is a type of guess isn't it?
I wonder what she thought of the Prank Theory?
Did you not post that on Facefook for her mum to read- ask for feedback. 8(0(*Not that many people will agree with you IMO.
Yeah, what can one say about the prank theory... hmm well, I hate to say this but the 'nutty one' having said that; the Genral has pointed out sane people can have their theories chucked in there.
What would they say if someone who had mental health issues came up with the theory of walk and wandered?
The Peter Pan version is better. in out of windows-disappearing to neverland -never to be found. from a 'sane' person.
Not that many people will agree with you IMO.
I would put a lot of the tweet messages in a 'nutty' box, does that mean these people have mental health problems?Any examples? These 'tweet messages'. Any examples?
Any examples? These 'tweet messages'. Any examples?
I take it lines 2 and 3 is the tweet message and the rest is your reading of the situation?
Please delete if against forum rules -
One of McCanns Tapas friends, the one accused of paedophilia said same thing ...and added that Madeleine was great fun...McCanns and their friends are all weirdos!!! #mccann
When were they accused of Paedophilia? This person twists everything and lies to suit what she wants out there.
All the people who say Madeleine died on the Sunday would be in the 'Nutty' box too.
Is that one who kept on and on about Gerry being a free mason still tweeting, or has he bored himself to death yet? #hereshoping
Please delete if against forum rules -
One of McCanns Tapas friends, the one accused of paedophilia said same thing ...and added that Madeleine was great fun...McCanns and their friends are all weirdos!!! #mccann
When were they accused of Paedophilia? This person twists everything and lies to suit what she wants out there.
All the people who say Madeleine died on the Sunday would be in the 'Nutty' box too.
I take it lines 2 and 3 is the tweet message and the rest is your reading of the situation?I think where the mental illness comes into it is less in the content of an individual tweet taken out of context but the repetition of propaganda themes and tropes, posted numerous times a day, day in day out for years and years, to the exclusion of any other subject. I'm sure there are numerous twitter accounts I could point you in the direction of if you're genuinely interested.
Is there a distinction between wrong and nutty? Or are all wrong tweet messages default nutty?
I think where the mental illness comes into it is less in the content of an individual tweet taken out of context but the repetition of propaganda themes and tropes, posted numerous times a day, day in day out for years and years, to the exclusion of any other subject. I'm sure there are numerous twitter accounts I could point you in the direction of if you're genuinely interested.What you describe is a technique not exclusive to twitter. I think it is apparent throughout the internet wherever Madeleine McCann's name is mentioned.
What you describe is a technique not exclusive to twitter. I think it is apparent throughout the internet wherever Madeleine McCann's name is mentioned.Yeh ditto Katie Hopkins, Gareth Gates, Harvey Price, anyone remotely in the public eye. Doesnae make it right.
It begs the question - is the continual, daily expression online of hatred of specific celebrities or people in the news, spreading propaganda and lies (such as photoshopped pics etc) about individuals on a very regular basis and trolling generally a mental illness or at least a symptom of one?
It begs the question - is the continual, daily expression online of hatred of specific celebrities or people in the news, spreading propaganda and lies (such as photoshopped pics etc) about individuals on a very regular basis and trolling generally a mental illness or at least a symptom of one?In the main, no. It's a 21st century version of Angry from Wealdstone, except it's infinitely more accessible. Was Angry from Wealdstone 'nutty', or just misguided / interested / frustrated / jealous / lacking other outlets? Probably. What's important to one is irrelevant to another.
In the main, no. It's a 21st century version of Angry from Wealdstone, except it's infinitely more accessible. Was Angry from Wealdstone 'nutty', or just misguided / interested / frustrated / jealous / lacking other outlets? Probably. What's important to one is irrelevant to another.No it's not like Angry from Wealdstone, unless you're suggesting that this 20th Century construct spent all day every day writing angry letters to the papers about some celebrity he hated, or daubed hateful grafftiti on the walls of the local pubs on a daily basis? This is about regularity, about spending a large part of your day churning out online propaganda designed to influence others to suspect and / or despise people in the public eye. Maybe the internet has simply helped turned Angry from Wealdstone into Hopping Mad from Wealdstone Mental Institution. It's perfectly acceptable and even understandable to hate Gerry and Kate McCann but to spend such a lot of one's time and energy being hateful about them is not normal IMO.
There will be some total cranks interested in all manner of subjects, some of whom just have a pathological hatred of their chosen bete noire. For example, I hate Davros with an irrational disdain that's incalculable. He's my arch-nemesis; my itchy to his scratchy. Like those two dudes on Highlander, kicking each other's arses throughout time first with a rock or something, then with a tazer in a small flat above a Nisa store in Croyden.
Some people hate Gerry and Kate McCann - they're not all mad, not......all.......mad.......not.....all....m
In the main, no. It's a 21st century version of Angry from Wealdstone, except it's infinitely more accessible. Was Angry from Wealdstone 'nutty', or just misguided / interested / frustrated / jealous / lacking other outlets? Probably. What's important to one is irrelevant to another.
There will be some total cranks interested in all manner of subjects, some of whom just have a pathological hatred of their chosen bete noire. For example, I hate Davros with an irrational disdain that's incalculable. He's my arch-nemesis; my itchy to his scratchy. Like those two dudes on Highlander, kicking each other's arses throughout time first with a rock or something, then with a tazer in a small flat above a Nisa store in Croyden.
Some people hate Gerry and Kate McCann - they're not all mad, not......all.......mad.......not.....all....m
In the main, no. It's a 21st century version of Angry from Wealdstone, except it's infinitely more accessible. Was Angry from Wealdstone 'nutty', or just misguided / interested / frustrated / jealous / lacking other outlets? Probably. What's important to one is irrelevant to another.PS: There's a thin line between love and hate as Chrissie Hynde once sang. Just sayin'... 8(>((
There will be some total cranks interested in all manner of subjects, some of whom just have a pathological hatred of their chosen bete noire. For example, I hate Davros with an irrational disdain that's incalculable. He's my arch-nemesis; my itchy to his scratchy. Like those two dudes on Highlander, kicking each other's arses throughout time first with a rock or something, then with a tazer in a small flat above a Nisa store in Croyden.
Some people hate Gerry and Kate McCann - they're not all mad, not......all.......mad.......not.....all....m
No it's not like Angry from Wealdstone, unless you're suggesting that this 20th Century construct spent all day every day writing angry letters to the papers about some celebrity he hated, or daubed hateful grafftiti on the walls of the local pubs on a daily basis? This is about regularity, about spending a large part of your day churning out online propaganda designed to influence others to suspect and / or despise people in the public eye. Maybe the internet has simply helped turned Angry from Wealdstone into Hopping Mad from Wealdstone Mental Institution. It's perfectly acceptable and even understandable to hate Gerry and Kate McCann but to spend such a lot of one's time and energy being hateful about them is not normal IMO.It's all about access. Wealdstone man got fleeting gratification from one letter in 50 being published. Now he gets 50 tweets published automatically. Instant, unending gratification.
It's all about access. Wealdstone man got fleeting gratification from one letter in 50 being published. Now he gets 50 tweets published automatically. Instant, unending gratification.Which IMO is a symptom of a mental illness, a bit like an addiction to porn.
Which IMO is a symptom of a mental illness, a bit like an addiction to porn.
Which IMO is a symptom of a mental illness, a bit like an addiction to porn.
There is no such thing as a mental illness named 'addiction to porn' imo.
There is no such thing as a mental illness named 'addiction to porn' imo.Did I say there was? Try reading the post again and get back to me.
what qualification do you have to make that statement
Neither the DSM-5 nor the ICD-11 classify pornography as a mental disorder or addiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction
The fact remains - working in the NHS caling people names is a no no. Especially those with mental illness.
Addictions are behavioral and can be treated.
But Kate didn't call anyone nutty
The fact remains - working in the NHS caling people names is a no no. Especially those with mental illness.
Addictions are behavioral and can be treated.
The messages were nutty not the people sending them.Well not all of them.
The messages were nutty not the people sending them.
Really?Congratulations for proving that she did not call anyone nutty. She calls their correspondence nutty and themselves mentally ill. clear as day.
And then there are those it is impossible to be sure about – the folk whose correspondence goes into the ‘Nutty’ box. We must assume that most of these letters, though not necessarily all of them, are sent by people suffering
from mental illness, and I don’t want to make light of their problems. Indeed, it is concerning, if our mail is anything to go by, how many vulnerable individuals there seem to be out there with psychiatric conditions that remain either undiagnosed or inadequately treated. [madeleine]
The messages were nutty not the people sending them.Prove it
Congratulations for proving that she did not call anyone nutty. She calls their correspondence nutty and themselves mentally ill. clear as day.Trying to sort that one out is driving me nutty.
Trying to sort that one out is driving me nutty.It’s really very simple, I’m not sure why so many people are struggling with it. Perhaps it’s down to sheer determination to see Kate in a bad light in every conceivable way.
It’s really very simple, I’m not sure why so many people are struggling with it. Perhaps it’s down to sheer determination to see Kate in a bad light in every conceivable way.
I think she managed that all on her own with her unpleasant comments towards police officers who were only doing their job. Who the bloody hell does she think she is?The mother of a missing child who felt badly let down by incompetent clueless coppers probably.
The mother of a missing child who felt badly let down by incompetent clueless coppers probably.
It's not surprising that the police were confused, GM couldn't even remember how he got into the apartment. How much did he have to drink that night?
Curiously, KM never mentioned the praying Arab event in the apartment in her paperback, could that be because she forgot or because it was an embarrassing lack of control?
It's not surprising that the police were confused, GM couldn't even remember how he got into the apartment. How much did he have to drink that night?Or could it be that she didn’t consider that she was praying like an Arab at all? Why would she be embarrassed to mention it? She mentions other “embarrassing lack of control” moments.
Curiously, KM never mentioned the praying Arab event in the apartment in her paperback, could that be because she forgot or because it was an embarrassing lack of control?
Poor lickle policemen all confused by those nasty, naughty McCanns, I mean don’t they receive any training in how to police in Portugal? Or can any fool put on a uniform and stand around ineffectually chewing gum and scratching arse?
It won't work VS, everyone knows the police were totally professional in the face of stupidity by an English couple who apparently didn't read the guide to best childminding.Everyone knows do they? Yeah right. Everyone knows the Portuguese police conducted a piss poor investigation right from the start until Amaral was booted off.
Everyone knows do they? Yeah right. Everyone knows the Portuguese police conducted a piss poor investigation right from the start until Amaral was booted off.
What in your opinion would pass muster?A sense of urgency, coupled with a completely open mind, plenty of highly trained resources, efficient filing systems and cross referencing, rapid pursuance of credible leads, proper note and statement taking (audio recordings at the very least), professional translators, loads more but I’m getting ready right now...
A sense of urgency, coupled with a completely open mind, plenty of highly trained resources, efficient filing systems and cross referencing, rapid pursuance of credible leads, proper note and statement taking (audio recordings at the very least), professional translators, loads more but I’m getting ready right now...
You are attempting to compare the Met with its huge budget with a small region in Portugal where crime is rare. IMO the PJ did an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances with limited funds.
A sense of urgency, coupled with a completely open mind, plenty of highly trained resources, efficient filing systems and cross referencing, rapid pursuance of credible leads, proper note and statement taking (audio recordings at the very least), professional translators, loads more but I’m getting ready right now...
You are attempting to compare the Met with its huge budget with a small region in Portugal where crime is rare. IMO the PJ did an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances with limited funds.
Assuming PJ were lacking in the above areas what, if anything, has prevented the private detective agencies and MET catching up?Distance in terms of hours from the time Madeleine went missing would be the primary hurdle imo.
You are attempting to compare the Met with its huge budget with a small region in Portugal where crime is rare. IMO the PJ did an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances with limited funds. The McCanns and their associated created the circus which ultimately engulfed the entire investigation. The illegal conduct by certain individuals associated with the McCanns post disappearance was appalling imo and I for one would still like to see them prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice.Yeah, just how is that campaign of yours going?
You are attempting to compare the Met with its huge budget with a small region in Portugal where crime is rare. IMO the PJ did an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances with limited funds.
Assuming PJ were lacking in the above areas what, if anything, has prevented the private detective agencies and MET catching up?
The MET still haven't come up with the answer that contradicts the initial investigation either.You just do not know that, do you?
Exactly, plus some collective IQs in the 120+ bracket would have helped. Judging from the level of intelligence on display in his book and during his tenure on the case I would say Amaral was somewhat lacking in that department, same with some of his colleagues #notthebrighteststarinthefirmament
Many of the suggestion made by VS, require no huge budget but just proper policing and organisational skills and experience..
The biggest hurdle was the behaviour of the parents themselves which imo did very little to assist the investigation. The McCanns were terrified that they would be prosecuted for child neglect which would have destroyed their respective careers in the medical profession. As it was, they got away with a slap on the wrists and a regular check on the twins by English social services.
The biggest hurdle was the behaviour of the parents themselves which imo did very little to assist the investigation. The McCanns were terrified that they would be prosecuted for child neglect which would have destroyed their respective careers in the medical profession. As it was, they got away with a slap on the wrists and a regular check on the twins by English social services.You get today’s special award for dedicated services to victim blaming 2019, congratulations.
You get today’s special award for dedicated services to victim blaming 2019, congratulations.
The biggest hurdle was the behaviour of the parents themselves which imo did very little to assist the investigation. The McCanns were terrified that they would be prosecuted for child neglect which would have destroyed their respective careers in the medical profession. As it was, they got away with a slap on the wrists and a regular check on the twins by English social services.
Exactly, plus some collective IQs in the 120+ bracket would have helped. Judging from the level of intelligence on display in his book and during his tenure on the case I would say Amaral was somewhat lacking in that department, same with some of his colleagues #notthebrighteststarinthefirmament
You are attempting to compare the Met with its huge budget with a small region in Portugal where crime is rare. IMO the PJ did an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances with limited funds. The McCanns and their associated created the circus which ultimately engulfed the entire investigation. The illegal conduct by certain individuals associated with the McCanns post disappearance was appalling imo and I for one would still like to see them prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
On paper at least the McCanns must be above average in intelligence and yet it didn't prevent them from making a stupid decision which had disastrous consequences for their daughter.
That's assuming the McCanns are victims.Perhaps you should get down to Specsavers then.
I'm yet to see any proof that they didn't do it.
The unacceptable behaviour of the parents in conducting a media campaign resulting in thousands of time-wasting sightings did more damage than anything the PJ did. Had the crime occured in the UK the police would have stopped that from happening in my opinion. I think OG have stopped it now, but it took a while.What gives you that impression? Don’t the police in this country hold regular public appeals using grieving parents in news bulletins appealing for the safe return of their children anymore? What about Crimewatch?
I take it you have read Kate's book?? If you have you will see that the McCanns worked out long, long ago that they made a stupid decision which they will have to live with forever.
Why do you feel the need to shoulder their burden by constant repetition?
The unacceptable behaviour of the parents in conducting a media campaign resulting in thousands of time-wasting sightings did more damage than anything the PJ did. Had the crime occured in the UK the police would have stopped that from happening in my opinion. I think OG have stopped it now, but it took a while.
You will note from Kate's book that the reason the McCanns had to conduct a media campaign was that no-one was looking for Madeleine.
Scotland Yard and the Judicial Police did indeed halt the necessity for the McCann investigations by the simple expediency of reopening Madeleine's case. Very simple really when one thinks about it.
I take it you have read Kate's book?? If you have you will see that the McCanns worked out long, long ago that they made a stupid decision which they will have to live with forever.
Why do you feel the need to shoulder their burden by constant repetition?
Why do some feel the need to constantly criticise and denigrate PJ?
The McCanns wilfully ignored the guidlines on childcare, even after they had reason to believe their 'listening system' wasn't working. Their reasons for doing so are not convincing imo.Nor are your reasons for continually banging on about it week in week out for 12 years. We got the message already.
You will note from Kate's book that the reason the McCanns had to conduct a media campaign was that no-one was looking for Madeleine.
Scotland Yard and the Judicial Police did indeed halt the necessity for the McCann investigations by the simple expediency of reopening Madeleine's case. Very simple really when one thinks about it.
I thought the McCanns employed several firms of private investigators to look for MM?
What gives you that impression? Don’t the police in this country hold regular public appeals using grieving parents in news bulletins appealing for the safe return of their children anymore? What about Crimewatch?
Organised and controlled by the police.So what unhelpful behaviours specifically are you objecting to from the McCanns in the first investigation, that you think the police in this country would have put a stop to?
A sense of urgency, coupled with a completely open mind, plenty of highly trained resources, efficient filing systems and cross referencing, rapid pursuance of credible leads, proper note and statement taking (audio recordings at the very least), professional translators, loads more but I’m getting ready right now...
The McCanns wilfully ignored the guidlines on childcare, even after they had reason to believe their 'listening system' wasn't working. Their reasons for doing so are not convincing imo.That is your opinion. Please tie it in to something which is in the book and therefore on topic.
You might find that information in Kate McCann's book which I believe might be the topic of this particular thread.
The McCann's campaign began at around 3am on 4th May 2007, and continued throughout the first PJ investigation.
The McCanns wilfully ignored the guidlines on childcare, even after they had reason to believe their 'listening system' wasn't working. Their reasons for doing so are not convincing imo.
Do you have any specific dates for when no one was looking for MM as you claimed?About a week after she disappeared the police stopped looking.
Do you have any specific dates for when no one was looking for MM as you claimed?This topic is nothing at all to do with me or my claims. Do read Kate's book for a greater understanding of events which will enable you to draw your own conclusions. The foreword is interesting giving reasons for the book being written ... easy to work out from thereon in I should imagine.
About a week after she disappeared the police stopped looking.
You just do not know that, do you?
Was that before or after RM came on the radar?
Does the book make any reference to Murat?
Yes.
Does the book make any reference to Murat?
Does the book make any reference to Murat?
Yes.
Talking of the meeting in portimao police station?
Negatively or in the positive?
Just for you barrier I will take myself off read the pages and report back forthwith 8((()*/
The biggest problem was the failure of the pj to understand the evidence in thr case... Failure to listen to the experts.
A neglect conviction would not have affected the medical careers of the mccanns
Oh but it certainly would have, no doctor could hold a licence to practise with such a conviction. As it was, Kate McCann had to give up her career for several years.
Thanks,but i'd be surprised if its positive.
This topic is nothing at all to do with me or my claims. Do read Kate's book for a greater understanding of events which will enable you to draw your own conclusions. The foreword is interesting giving reasons for the book being written ... easy to work out from thereon in I should imagine.
Also by doing so there is a slight chance of staying on topic.
My take on it is that she has stuck to the facts ie how he initially came to the attention of PJ via the reporter and then the claims of some members of T7 observing him around 5A on 3rd May at a time he said he was at home with his mother. She claims PJ were feeding her snippets about him eg finding some article about Casanova being a paedophile and to keep daughters locked up. She concludes PJ were wrong about RM in the same way they wrong about GM and herself.
So does that mean they deserved a poor investigation? However a child disappears, it is the Police who are given the job of finding the child.
My take on it is that she has stuck to the facts ie how he initially came to the attention of PJ via the reporter and then the claims of some members of T7 observing him around 5A on 3rd May at a time he said he was at home with his mother. She claims PJ were feeding her snippets about him eg finding some article about Casanova being a paedophile and to keep daughters locked up. She concludes PJ were wrong about RM in the same way they wrong about GM and herself.
The two things are not connected. The parents are completely responsible for their failures and the police for theirs.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg560130#msg560130
The two things are not connected. The parents are completely responsible for their failures and the police for theirs.
I agree...it could be said that both the McCanns and the initial PJ investigation let Maddie down
If the McCanns did what they said they did then it's a fact that they let their daughter down. I'm not so sure about the initial investigation, because no-one with the appropriate knowledge has criticised it.
If the McCanns did what they said they did then it's a fact that they let their daughter down. I'm not so sure about the initial investigation, because no-one with the appropriate knowledge has criticised it.
There is some mention of the police performance in Kate's book ... don't you consider she has the appropriate knowledge to mention what she experienced.
I think that for a long time when the police investigation was mentioned elsewhere it was paired with 'botched'. A fair read of the book could point out why that was.
There is some mention of the police performance in Kate's book ... don't you consider she has the appropriate knowledge to mention what she experienced.
I think that for a long time when the police investigation was mentioned elsewhere it was paired with 'botched'. A fair read of the book could point out why that was.
What was she comparing it with?
Did I mention that Kate had compared it with anything? Perhaps she did but having read the book yourself I thought you might have drawn your own conclusions for discussion rather than relying on my anecdotes for the starting point.
Like for example being unable either in Britain or in Portugal to run a Crimewatch style programme in cooperation with the police to catch the interest of holidaymakers who had returned home and who might have information, because of restrictions imposed by Portuguese law.
I can also state for a certainty that she was scathing about the illegal leaks emanating from the police which plagued the investigation.
There actually is a mine of information contained within the pages of Kates book ... so sad really that a minority of members appear only to be interested in the few words which sceptics have chosen to define it; or what a third party thinks rather than relying on informing themselves straight from the source.
Let's get real.
Newspapers love to describe police investigations as 'botched'.
People who wish a different outcome from formal proceedings often describe them as 'botched'.
I am critical of certain aspects of OG's performance. Should I, on this basis, describe their whole effort as 'botched'?
'Botched' is a soapbox description straight from the House of Commons, and is best left there.
Obviously IMO.
Did Kate in her book describe the police procedures for when a child goes missing as being 'textbook'? Would you be content if the same procedures she describes were to be followed if one of your relatives went missing today or might you express concern if they were?
The dictionary defines 'Botch' as being Late Middle English ... so whether that, House of Commons or soapbox ... the meaning doesn't change from being a badly or carelessly carried out task.
My reading of the police investigation into Madeleine's disappearance indicates to me that 'botched' describes it appropriately.
No you didn't mention that KM compared the investigation into MM's disappearance with other investigations that's why I asked. For someone to say this, that or the other was good, bad or indifferent they surely must have some reference point in the first instance?
Then what you are doing is opening the door for others to express their opinions is similar terminology.
As in the McCanns 'botched' their handling of the police and press no later than 4 May.
It's stuff straight from the gutter.
Kate's book does indeed make many references to all aspects of the press ... but I think the interesting points you raise which although discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere would be well worth you opening the subject on its own thread which will give it the advantage of at least being On Topic.
Why on earth do you think Kate should be obliged to compare Madeleine's disappearance with anything? What happened to the McCann family was in my opinion unique to them and unique to Madeleine.
I am using the same reference point as you which on this thread is Kate McCann's book in which she describes the kidnap of her daughter and the aftermath.
I don't think you and I appear to be reading the same book.
I have read and understood the whole book description by an individual describing the most traumatic and unthinkable event of her life and the lives of her family without compartmentalising "good, bad or indifferent".
Does it mention anywhere in Kate's bestseller that they botched their own child care arrangements, or lack of them?
Kate's book covers the initial response, so I was definitely on topic.
But she is critical of officers, the investigation and even the appearance of the police station and yet we have no idea of her reference points.I rather doubt that Kate McCann or any of her party had much familiarity with the inside of police stations which are probably not the most inviting of environments at the best of times.
No need to get all defensive since I accused you of no such thing. If it is your opinion your post was in reference to Kate's book, fine by me. However the risk of deflection would most certainly be reduced were you to follow my suggestion bearing in mind the thrust of your post which if I remember correctly, was press abuse.
I can only recall the following:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11076.msg559885#msg559885
The index lists children, checking but no mention of the unsecured patio doors eg P165:Snip
Had Madeleine been specifically targeted, either for herself or because someone knew that apartment 5A would be a breeze to raid? Not only did its corner position allow for easy access and escape, but unlike many other residences, it had no protective wrought-iron bars at the windows and no security light. Page 165.
The above is disingenuous imo and further evidence of blame shifting.
How many other residences contained 3 small sleeping children left alone night after night in an apartment with unlocked patio doors? Of course its easier to blame the lack of wrought iron bars and no security light.
Snip
We talked through the guilt we felt about not having been in that apartment with the children; about having left the patio doors unlocked
madeleine: Kate McCann
Does it mention anywhere in Kate's bestseller that they botched their own child care arrangements, or lack of them?
Yes I quoted that up thread and said afaik its the only ref to the unsecured patio doors.
Then what you are doing is opening the door for others to express their opinions is similar terminology.Why have you taken so against the word “botched”? And what on earth do you mean by “the McCanns botched their handing of the police and press no later than 4th May”? Please explain (she asked, knowing there was more chance of pigs flying or Jeremy Corbyn being the next PM).
As in the McCanns 'botched' their handling of the police and press no later than 4 May.
It's stuff straight from the gutter.
Then what you are doing is opening the door for others to express their opinions is similar terminology.
As in the McCanns 'botched' their handling of the police and press no later than 4 May.
It's stuff straight from the gutter.
But what is your opinion worth when it is driven by bias.. You offered the mccanns your services... Lol... And they didn't reply to you... He'll hath no Fury....Yeh that post makes literally no sense whatsoever. But 6/10 for effort. He'll hath what now?
Really? Will you link to your post for me please. I have carried out a search and found that post above and plenty of other posts containing the information ... but no other that I can see on this thread.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg560204#msg560204
Thank you.
My confusion arises from being told you had mentioned the subject of the unlocked patio doors on this thread.
Snip
Yes I quoted that up thread and said afaik its the only ref to the unsecured patio doors
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg560217#msg560217
That information did not show up in a search for the simple reason you posted it on another thread. Try it out for yourself ... out of thirty posts on a variety of threads in which you refer to unlocked patio doors ... only one shows up on this thread, and it is not the one you have linked to, it is the one above
Maybe if Kate McCann had cooperated with the original police investigation and answered all their questions she wouldn't have felt the need to bare her soul in her book of truths.
I cannot warm to her at all through her book. She comes over to me as controlling, judgemental and with a massive sense of entitlement.
I cannot warm to her at all through her book. She comes over to me as controlling, judgemental and with a massive sense of entitlement.
I posted the link to the relevant text on this thread. There's no need to keep copying and pasting lines and lines of text when a link can take readers straight to it.
It's just personal opinion... She seems a really nice person to me... Of course I don't know her as, well as you seem to do having never met her
There's no need to make if personal Davel with a facetious comment.It isn't personal it applies to several posters here. I don't see how you can make a valid assessment of someone's character in such little information... Until you've met and talked to someone I think such judgements, are rather immature
KM wrote a book about her life and experiences it is up to readers how they interpret the author and the contents.
i agree after all it is no ones fault but gerry and kates for leaving their children alone they were responsible for their childrens welfare
It's just personal opinion... She seems a really nice person to me... Of course I don't know her as, well as you seem to do having never met herThe irony is lost on you. Your personal opinion is she's a 'really nice person' - and you haven't met her either.
It isn't personal it applies to several posters here. I don't see how you can make a valid assessment of someone's character in such little information... Until you've met and taljed to someone I think such judgements, are rather immature
The irony is lost on you. Your personal opinion is she's a 'really nice person' - and you haven't met her either.
The irony is lost on you. Your personal opinion is she's a 'really nice person' - and you haven't met her either.
As I said yesterday it seems, a large number of posts now are simply a slagfest against the mccanns. Is this what Holly refers to as mature intelligent debate... LOL
Davel please read my post carefully:
I cannot warm to her at all through her book. She comes over to me as controlling, judgemental and with a massive sense of entitlement.
I didn't say ..she's a really nice person... Read the post again to checkYeh you did, she 'seems'. It's exactly that. That's your opinion. The 'seems' qualifies it as not being fact, but opinion.
In what way does the following post not constitute mature intelligent debate?
I cannot warm to her at all through her book. She comes over to me as controlling, judgemental and with a massive sense of entitlement.
Yeh you did, she 'seems'. It's exactly that. That's your opinion. The 'seems' qualifies it as not being fact, but opinion.
Try a little semantic wriggle all you like, but that's what it is hombre.
Kate's book.
In what way does the following post not constitute mature intelligent debate?
I cannot warm to her at all through her book. She comes over to me as controlling, judgemental and with a massive sense of entitlement.
I dint say she is s nice oersin.. As you have now admittedI said it's your opinion. Read it carefully, if that's within your gift.
Maybe if Kate McCann had cooperated with the original police investigation and answered all their questions she wouldn't have felt the need to bare her soul in her book of truths.
Conversely I am part way through 'Becoming - Michelle Obama' who comes over to me as a thoroughly likeable person.
She did answer all the questions asked of her throughout the investigation and during very lengthy sessions until she was made an arguida when she exercised her right to silence on legal advice.Seemed pretty reasonable questions to me.
As she recalled in her book, Murat did exactly the same when attending a confrontational meeting ... consulting with his lawyer and on at least one occasion both leaving the room to consult ... as was his right.
Portuguese law allows the right of arguidos to silence ... why is Kate to be castigated when the focus of the inquiry turned from searching for her daughter to attempting to implicate her in Madeleine's supposed death? Pretty daft of her to dignify PJ nonsense of mistaken and misguided conclusions, and abandon Madeleine to her fate as they had done?
How can we have a debate about opinions... You have yours... I have mine... Where is the possibility of debate.. Csn you not see that really simple fact
She did answer all the questions asked of her throughout the investigation and during very lengthy sessions until she was made an arguida when she exercised her right to silence on legal advice.
As she recalled in her book, Murat did exactly the same when attending a confrontational meeting ... consulting with his lawyer and on at least one occasion both leaving the room to consult ... as was his right.
Portuguese law allows the right of arguidos to silence ... why is Kate to be castigated when the focus of the inquiry turned from searching for her daughter to attempting to implicate her in Madeleine's supposed death? Pretty daft of her to dignify PJ nonsense of mistaken and misguided conclusions, and abandon Madeleine to her fate as they had done?
If I say Donald Trump comes over to me as really nice person... What value, would that statement have
What do you think students debate and discuss in English lit classes?
More excuse for intelligent debate... Do sceptics really want to raise the same points over and over again... Do they expect a different outcome... We know what Einstein had to say about such behaviourOn topic? No.
My answer to that would be in what way do think he's a really nice person please provide some examples.And my answer would be why should I have to justify my opinion to you
And my answer would be why should I have to justify my opinion to youWell apparently it's worthless anyway.
My answer to that would be in what way do think he's a really nice person please provide some examples.
They debate on opinion based on facts.. Opinion based on too little information is totally worthless... Fact
Why do you think Kate cones over to others, as a really nice... Kind.. Considerate parenterrr....people forming OPINIONS based on the data available, including Kate's book? Sheesh, keep up Davros.
The fact you consider opinion based on too little information is totally worthless doesn't make it a fact its just your opinion.
Back to KM's PB we have 400 hundred odd pages which cover everything from her childhood friend eating pickled onion crisps to her child disappearing to her sex life.
errr....people forming OPINIONS based on the data available, including Kate's book? Sheesh, keep up Davros.
Davel please read my post carefully:
I cannot warm to her at all through her book. She comes over to me as controlling, judgemental and with a massive sense of entitlement.
And why are this opinions often so polarisedIn this instance? It's obviously because of the manner of the disappearance. 'Opinion' would almost certainly be overwhelmingly sympathetic if the circumstances were different. Perhaps even the simple act of locking the doors might have swayed public opinion.
I personally think they would have been better off just sticking their hands up, metaphorically speaking, and saying we made a massive error in judgement which we will have to live with for the rest of our lives no ifs, no buts. Instead of attempting to justify why they didn't use the creche/hire a sitter and trying to convince us all it was similar to eating in the garden at home when it jolly well wasn't!
Why do you think Kate cones over to others, as a really nice... Kind.. Considerate parent
You seem to be referring to an entirely different book from the one I read which is dripping with the regrets of an anguished mother driven to the brink of madness (nuttiness? mental health issues?) by the loss of her daughter including leaving her children alone.
You do realise the events you describe all happened over twelve years ago? In what way do you think your and others constant revisiting of them advances Madeleine's case in any way whatsoever?
You seem to be referring to an entirely different book from the one I read which is dripping with the regrets of an anguished mother driven to the brink of madness (nuttiness? mental health issues?) by the loss of her daughter including leaving her children alone.
You do realise the events you describe all happened over twelve years ago? In what way do you think your and others constant revisiting of them advances Madeleine's case in any way whatsoever?
In what way do you believe KM comes over as "really nice...Kind?
I disagree that she comes over as a considerate parent on the basis that she put her own needs before that of her children in terms of leaving them alone every evening in an unsecured holiday apartment Sun - Thu. She did not need to go to tapas every evening. Her and GM could have taken it in turns with one baby-sitting. They did not think it through before arriving in resort to the point they could have taken a baby monitor.
I would say they believed what they were doing was perfectly safe.... And felt it better the children got the right amount if sleepIs that your opinion, having read Kate's paperback?
Nothing advances Madeleine's case, including aggressive defence of the McCann position by a handful of supporters, but that doesn't seem to deter them.
Same book but we probably have different backgrounds/personalities and therefore interpret differently.
There's no need for facetious comments.
I personally find it interesting to dissect the book and the author. If others do they will join in if they don't they won't.
Same book but we probably have different backgrounds/personalities and therefore interpret differently.To rephrase the question I asked in the vain hope of receiving an answer for a pleasant change ...
There's no need for facetious comments.
I personally find it interesting to dissect the book and the author. If others do they will join in if they don't they won't.
I would say they believed what they were doing was perfectly safe.... And felt it better the children got the right amount if sleep
It might be interesting to you but to most others your opinion is not really of any interest because in the main part it is, so subjective
I would say most mature and responsible parents wouldn't consider it perfectly safe to leave 3 small children under 4 yoa night after night in an unlocked holiday apartment. A view endorsed by the NSPCC:
There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them. They would not be able to protect themselves in an emergency and may even try to leave the property to find you.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone
What prevented the McCanns from taking it in turns to sit the children of an evening?
To rephrase the question I asked in the vain hope of receiving an answer for a pleasant change ...
Kate wrote her book about Madeleine's disappearance twelve years ago and its aftermath. There are constant references to events of the time which happened then and cannot be changed now such as the unlocked patio door. In what way do you think the constant internet driven revisiting of them advances Madeleine's case in any way whatsoever?
It might be interesting to you but to most others your opinion is not really of any interest because in the main part it is, so subjective
Nothing advances Madeleine's case, including aggressive defence of the McCann position by a handful of supporters, but that doesn't seem to deter them.
Why do you think Kate cones over to others, as a really nice... Kind.. Considerate parent
Imo examples of her niceness, kindness and consideration to her children would be helpful. What did she do to give people that impression?
As I said it's, a pointless debate.... I have my opinion others have there's.. I'm not interested in changing anyones mindBut we can discuss our perception / opinion of Kate's book right? After all, it was only a few days ago on this thread people were waxing lyrical about it and its overwhelmingly positive reviews, which are - guess what - people's opinions. So it would seem that your assertion of opinions being irrelevant is wrong. Super wrong.
As I said it's, a pointless debate.... I have my opinion others have there's.. I'm not interested in changing anyones mind
But we can discuss our perception / opinion of Kate's book right? After all, it was only a few days ago on this thread people were waxing lyrical about it and its overwhelmingly positive reviews, which are - guess what - people's opinions. So it would seem that your assertion of opinions being irrelevant is wrong. Super wrong.
I'm sure there are many 'opinions' in Kate's book - her perceptions of the PJ for example. - tweedledum and tweedledee
Or in providing cites to support your opinions, it seems. @)(++(*
Or in providing cites to support your opinions, it seems. @)(++(*
The problem is with Kates 'bestseller'nobel prize contender for outstanding Literatureis there are no get out of jail clauses ie:
Bad interpreters, Amaral,the PJ, the people of Portugual even Mrs F. cannot be blamed for any analysis of Kates Book. Hence no excuses- good eh?
Cites are not required for opinions...
Which, of course, suggests you can't and that your opinion has no basis.
It might suggest to you... To me it's I can't be bothered to debate with someone who is willing to ignore overwhelming evidence due to their mindset
Imo you always say that when you can't answer.
i agree after all it is no ones fault but gerry and kates for leaving their children alone they were responsible for their childrens welfare
So don't give any blame to abductor then. I don't care if there was an red arrow lit up with fairy lights pointing to Madeleine's bedroom, no one has the right to steal a child. What was stopping the man who assaulted children from taking one of them? There was no evidence of forced entry to the apartments he entered.
I don't think I'll get an answer from you Carly as all you ever to is bash the McCann's.
So don't give any blame to abductor then. I don't care if there was an red arrow lit up with fairy lights pointing to Madeleine's bedroom, no one has the right to steal a child. What was stopping the man who assaulted children from taking one of them? There was no evidence of forced entry to the apartments he entered.
I don't think I'll get an answer from you Carly as all you ever to is bash the McCann's.
Well at least in these other, probably totally unrelated cases there was some sign of entry / crime / anything. Besides, surely it's all the more remarkable that, given this sleepy little, off season holiday village was in the throes of a paedo / crime epidemic, that Mr and Mrs McCann saw fit to leave their 3 kids to fend for themselves. Or perhaps they were oblivious; kept in the dark by the local ineptitudes.
So don't give any blame to abductor then. I don't care if there was an red arrow lit up with fairy lights pointing to Madeleine's bedroom, no one has the right to steal a child. What was stopping the man who assaulted children from taking one of them? There was no evidence of forced entry to the apartments he entered.
I don't think I'll get an answer from you Carly as all you ever to is bash the McCann's.
What abductor?
God, just listen to yourselves. Still getting good value out of slagging off the same woman for twelve years, you should be thanking Kate for all the entertainment she’s given you and then maybe think about getting a life (faint hope I know...)To be fair I've only been irrationally berating her for a year.
Carly never responds to any "supporter" post. 8(8-))
To be fair I've only been irrationally berating her for a year.
But yes, a few of the Youtube videos particularity are hilarious; all that gurning and nudging, like Nookie Bear on crack.
Carly knocks a door and runs away, its called baiting......and your post isn't? Dude, come on.
And your point is?
I've got 11 years catching up to do.
And your point is?
Well at least in these other, probably totally unrelated cases there was some sign of entry / crime / anything. Besides, surely it's all the more remarkable that, given this sleepy little, off season holiday village was in the throes of a paedo / crime epidemic, that Mr and Mrs McCann saw fit to leave their 3 kids to fend for themselves. Or perhaps they were oblivious; kept in the dark by the local ineptitudes.Yeah, I don’t think that’s something Mark Warner were likely to include in their PoS.
To be fair I've only been irrationally berating her for a year.Why did it take you 11 years to join the party? Were you too busy having a life then or did you need a new target to irrationally berate?
But yes, a few of the Youtube videos particularity are hilarious; all that gurning and nudging, like Nookie Bear on crack.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s something Mark Warner were likely to include in their PoS.
Gerry knew about the paedophile gangs by about 10:30.Mrs Fenn probably tipped him off.
He must have got that information from somewhere.
Mrs Fenn probably tipped him off.
I thought she was the abductor?!Maybe Wonderfulspam, maybe. Because of course as we all know Portugal is a paedo free country. They just don’t have them there. All the news reports about them were written by the McCanns, even the ones that pre-date Madeleine’s disappearance, like Casa Pia because as you know this was all planned years in advance, before the poor child was even born.
Maybe she made it up just to cover her tracks.
I thought she was the abductor?!No according to Holly... It's her neice
Maybe she made it up just to cover her tracks.
Maybe Wonderfulspam, maybe. Because of course as we all know Portugal is a paedo free country. They just don’t have them there. All the news reports about them were written by the McCanns, even the ones that pre-date Madeleine’s disappearance, like Casa Pia because as you know this was all planned years in advance, before the poor child was even born.
I'm not sure that it's paedo free, but abductors are certainly pretty thin on the ground.Of course I forgot to mention no one has ever been abducted in Portugal either, crime free zone innit.
No according to Holly... It's her neiceLOL!
LOL!It's Hollys theory
It's Hollys theoryReally? Oh dear. See, I don’t think Holly is mentally ill, but I’d definitely put that in the box marked “nutty”.
The one that OG are investigating.
Really? Oh dear. See, I don’t think Holly is mentally ill, but I’d definitely put that in the box marked “nutty”.
Anyone like to discuss Kate's book?Yeah, it’s crap, the author’s a nasty cow, it’s worse than a Mills and Boon, pack of lies, blah blah blah blah blah. That should get us back on track!
Well at least in these other, probably totally unrelated cases there was some sign of entry / crime / anything. Besides, surely it's all the more remarkable that, given this sleepy little, off season holiday village was in the throes of a paedo / crime epidemic, that Mr and Mrs McCann saw fit to leave their 3 kids to fend for themselves. Or perhaps they were oblivious; kept in the dark by the local ineptitudes.
.....and your post isn't? Dude, come on.
Why did it take you 11 years to join the party? Were you too busy having a life then or did you need a new target to irrationally berate?Chained to a radiator in Mogadishu for 7 of them. Long story. Befriended my captors. Took them off guard one night. Set fire to the compound. Escaped with the aid of a helper monkey called Tito.
Chained to a radiator in Mogadishu for 7 of them. Long story. Befriended my captors. Took them off guard one night. Set fire to the compound. Escaped with the aid of a helper monkey called Tito.
The nutty box is getting fullGet out then.
Get out then.
'Tito, attack!'
....incidentally, Kate's book is available on Amazon. Other outlets are also available.
if you want a personally signed copy pm meCould be useful. Kindling perhaps.
Could be useful. Kindling perhaps.
expensive kindling....I have a personally signed copy of michelle obamas latest too..if thats more to your likingWho personally signed it, Michelle or Davros?
Chained to a radiator in Mogadishu for 7 of them. Long story. Befriended my captors. Took them off guard one night. Set fire to the compound. Escaped with the aid of a helper monkey called Tito.Reasonable excuse.
Who personally signed it, Michelle or Davros?
Is it any good?
i think we all understand what personally signed means.....are you in or outHow much?
How much?
which one....kates is Ł1.50 including postage...michelles is Ł250 exclusiveKate's is a bit rich for me.
Kate's is a bit rich for me.
its abit of a damp squib too ...so wouldnt be much good for kindling..do you tink im pitching it a bit highNot according to the Amazon ratings.
Not according to the Amazon ratings.
i thought you didnt rate the ratingsI don't, but the consensus might suggest it's worth a smidge more than 30 bob.
The Police said there was no sign of forced entry. Do you honestly think the McCann's would be told about a man visiting the bedroom of children at night and assaulting them?
Kate did at least realise that they helped to create the media mayhem and that it might not help.
4th May 2007
We were quite surprised that people were giving interviews but it was understandable. After all, we’d been on the phone half the night to our friends and relatives, sobbing that nothing was being done and begging for their help. And we appreciated the swift response. We were just worried that any criticism of the police might not do us or, more to the point, Madeleine, any favours. [madeleine]
The thing is, things were being done, even if the McCanns weren't aware of it. I expect they felt like we've all felt when visiting A & E and the doctor's and nurses seem to be ignoring us. It doesn't mean they're doing nothing, it just feels like it. Then there's the idea that people in another country can help. How could speaking to the media in that country make a difference? It was more likely to upset the people that the McCanns were criticising, which indeed didn't help matters at all.
Why do you think the Portuguese police weren't professional enough to ignore criticism and get on with the job in hand which was finding out what happened to Madeleine? Why waste time focusing on "the badly told story" of witness statements which I doubt anyone had had the time to collate or consider particularly some which were probably still being taken when the police were already briefing Jose Manuel Oliveira the crime reporter for the 'Diario de Noticias' of their suspicions.
I have made my point using information from 'madeleine'.OK ... perhaps Kate might not have mentioned Jose Manuel Oliveira by name but she most certainly does make mention of the breaches of the law with the police setting the agenda by leaking information to the press.
OK ... perhaps Kate might not have mentioned Jose Manuel Oliveira by name but she most certainly does make mention of the breaches of the law with the police setting the agenda by leaking information to the press.
In my opinion the first such was "A Badly Told story" on 5th May.
In Kate's opinion it was the ‘Pact of Silence’ on 3oth June.
Snip
This was probably the first article openly to cast doubt on our version of the events of 3 May. It raised suspicions about us and our friends, about our characters and about our potential involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance
madeleine: Kate McCann
This is quite ironic given that the McCanns and their friends were silent because their silence was demanded by Portuguese laws on secrecy while the police enjoyed free rein to break the law as often and however they pleased.
Both these news items carried out the task of painting the victims of the crime against them and Madeleine in the worst possible light. Is that really what the police should have been doing in the best interests of a missing child?
How do you know the McCanns are victims?What would you accept as proof?
I'm yet to see any proof that they didn't do it.
Several days before it was published, all of us – Fiona, David, Jane, Russell, Matt and Rachael, as well as Gerry and I – had been contacted on our mobile phones by a reporter. Everyone had given her short shrift, but it was clear that somebody hadprovided her not only with our mobile numbers, but with other personal information, too. She had addressed me as Kate Healy, and although this was the name by which I was always known before Madeleine’s abduction, since then I’d only ever been referred to as Mrs McCann. She called Gerry ‘Gerald’, a name he never uses. She knew that Jane and Russell had recently moved to Devon. [madeleine]
It's suprising what investigative journalists can do. How did British journalists find Millie Dowler's phone number?
The Sol journalist may have called Gerry 'Gerald' when he phoned her to complain, but not in her article.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/03/madeleine-case-pact-of-silence.html
How do you know the McCanns are victims?
I'm yet to see any proof that they didn't do it.
As far as Kate was concerned the Judicial police flouted the much vaunted secrecy laws by releasing confidential information from official documents to Portuguese reporters. Exactly as described by Jose Manuel Oliveira. Kate complained and despite agreement from Luis Neves and Guilhermino Encarnacao that the PJ must have leaked the information illegally "no internal inquiry was ever launched". madeleine: Kate McCann
By the way ... a journalist hacked Milly Dowler's phone ... not the police. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14017661 the Portuguese police leaked the content of confidential documents and despite the secrecy laws nothing was done. Journalists were arrested over the phone hacking scandal and some were jailed for it. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-trial-judge-reveals-how-milly-dowlers-voicemail-was-hacked-as-journalists-jailed-9584249.html
Because Kate said so in interviews and in her book?You are entirely wrong there. Never once did Kate claim to be a victim in her book although I remember her constant referral to and empathy with all those who are the victims of crime.
You are entirely wrong there. Never once did Kate claim to be a victim in her book although I remember her constant referral to and empathy with all those who are the victims of crime.
Goncalo Amaral may have claimed he was the victim but Kate made it plain that the victim is Madeleine, not him.
The closest she comes to describing herself is in relation to the system with reference to Robert Murat's experiences at the hands of the police when she writes ... "Once we fell victim ourselves to the vagaries of the Portuguese police system, we soon discovered how easy it was for two and two to be put together to make five."
When given access to the files careful reading revealed that the police never had any real evidence against him, no wonder she was able to empathise with him.
In my opinion anyone who has a relative who vanishes whatever the circumstances is a victim of that disappearance. Having read and listened to the experts who are the relatives of the missing I have a clear understanding that lives are changed by it forever and some lives and relationships are destroyed by it; but everyone is a victim to one degree or another.
Kate McCann is no different from any one of these bereaved people ... or would you deny her the right to that unwelcome and unwanted status as well.
It would depend on why and how Madeleine disappeared.But speaking as someone who doesn’t believe the McCanns were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance...?
You are entirely wrong there. Never once did Kate claim to be a victim in her book although I remember her constant referral to and empathy with all those who are the victims of crime.
Goncalo Amaral may have claimed he was the victim but Kate made it plain that the victim is Madeleine, not him.
The closest she comes to describing herself is in relation to the system with reference to Robert Murat's experiences at the hands of the police when she writes ... "Once we fell victim ourselves to the vagaries of the Portuguese police system, we soon discovered how easy it was for two and two to be put together to make five."
When given access to the files careful reading revealed that the police never had any real evidence against him, no wonder she was able to empathise with him.
In my opinion anyone who has a relative who vanishes whatever the circumstances is a victim of that disappearance. Having read and listened to the experts who are the relatives of the missing I have a clear understanding that lives are changed by it forever and some lives and relationships are destroyed by it; but everyone is a victim to one degree or another.
Kate McCann is no different from any one of these bereaved people ... or would you deny her the right to that unwelcome and unwanted status as well.
By their own actions they remain suspects in the eyes of Portugal's highest court.
What would you accept as proof?
What have you got?I asked first. What would you accept as proof? Or is there literally nothing that would convince you that they didn’t dispose of their child’s body?
By their own actions they remain suspects in the eyes of Portugal's highest court.You will of course be able to provide a cite for this serious allegation.
I asked first. What would you accept as proof? Or is there literally nothing that would convince you that they didn’t dispose of their child’s body?
I think that's complete an utter tripe
I think the SC judgement is not fit for purpose and will shown to be by the ECHR
I think you are taking the thread off topic
by the logic of teh SC....Barry George is still a suspect in the Dando case as he has not been declared innocent
I'm sorry. I thought you were offering.Can you answer or not?
Can you answer or not?
You already know that I'm certain they diddit.
So yes, nothing, obviously.
Do you think it likely I'll ever be proven wrong?
I don't. Umpteen years, 12 million spent, nothing to show for it except eliminating the McCanns preferred abductor.
You already know that I'm certain they diddit.Exactly. For individuals like yourself, they will always be guilty of disposing of their child’s body no matter what proof subsequently comes to light. You are completely and utterly close minded. IMO. You will never be proven wrong just as a holocaust denier can never be proven wrong or a 9/11 truther, it’s because logic and rational debate is impossible.
So yes, nothing, obviously.
Do you think it likely I'll ever be proven wrong?
I don't. Umpteen years, 12 million spent, nothing to show for it except eliminating the McCanns preferred abductor.
I think that's complete an utter tripeDoes that mean you're a suspect in the Dando case, by default?
I think the SC judgement is not fit for purpose and will shown to be by the ECHR
I think you are taking the thread off topic
by the logic of teh SC....Barry George is still a suspect in the Dando case as he has not been declared innocent
Kate did at least realise that they helped to create the media mayhem and that it might not help.
4th May 2007
We were quite surprised that people were giving interviews but it was understandable. After all, we’d been on the phone half the night to our friends and relatives, sobbing that nothing was being done and begging for their help. And we appreciated the swift response. We were just worried that any criticism of the police might not do us or, more to the point, Madeleine, any favours. [madeleine]
The thing is, things were being done, even if the McCanns weren't aware of it. I expect they felt like we've all felt when visiting A & E and the doctor's and nurses seem to be ignoring us. It doesn't mean they're doing nothing, it just feels like it. Then there's the idea that people in another country can help. How could speaking to the media in that country make a difference? It was more likely to upset the people that the McCanns were criticising, which indeed didn't help matters at all.
It depends what you mean by proved...its a oft use but perhaps little understood wordHow?
1.proved beyond all doubt
2.proved beyond reasonable doubt
3. proved on the balance of probablities
I would say by two of the those definitions innocence has been proven.......beyond all doubt is virtually impossible and is never required by the legal system....apart from the SC in Portugal
Nobody knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. According to her parents she was abducted, but they can't prove it and neither can anyone else. Kate's book added no new facts imo.
Nobody knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. According to her parents she was abducted, but they can't prove it and neither can anyone else. Kate's book added no new facts imo.
Yes we all know what it feels like in A&E or seeing someone we love in hospital, thinking not enough is being done. None of us know what it feels like to lose a child and wait for news, an update as to what was going on. I don't think the McCann's were getting updated, otherwise Kate wouldn't have written a letter asking to be updated. Imagine it, your child missing and you have no clue as to what is happening.
The McCann's hoped by speaking to the media in other countries would get the word out that Madeleine was missing. How else could they do that?
Nobody knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. According to her parents she was abducted, but they can't prove it and neither can anyone else. Kate's book added no new facts imo.Rubbish, Kate’s book has been a huge source of facts, just because you choose to disbelieve most of them does not alter this fact!
The McCanns certainly weren't being updated by the PJ after returning to the UK. Why would they be?Are you familiar with the case of Rui Mendonca? If not I suggest you research it, you will the answer to your questiion then.
Why was it neccessary to alert the world about a child who disappeared in Portugal?
If Kate knows that Madeleine wasn't abducted, do you believe it possible that she would still have written her book?
Rubbish, Kate’s book has been a huge source of facts, just because you choose to disbelieve most of them does not alter this fact!
Why not? She was simply doing what she did from day one. Undermining the PJ, putting her version of events out there and looking for sympathy and donations.
Rubbish, Kate’s book has been a huge source of facts, just because you choose to disbelieve most of them does not alter this fact!
Very few of which have ever been substantiated or in the words of the Portuguese Supreme Court, they have never been able to prove that they were not involved in the child's mysterious disappearance. Their conduct was suspicious as was the refusal by their friends to cooperate fully with the investigation. I must say. such a thing is virtually unheard of as the parents and close associates of any missing infant are normally extremely keen to assist the police unless they have something to hide of course.
It would depend on why and how Madeleine disappeared.
If it isn't true then it isn't a fact. That's a fact.If it is true then it is a fact, the fact is all of Kate’s claims could be true and that’s a fact. The fact is you wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the facting face. FACT.
The fact is, most of Kate's claims could be untrue. And that's a fact.
Very few of which have ever been substantiated or in the words of the Portuguese Supreme Court, they have never been able to prove that they were not involved in the child's mysterious disappearance. Their conduct was suspicious as was the refusal by their friends to cooperate fully with the investigation. I must say. such a thing is virtually unheard of as the parents and close associates of any missing infant are normally extremely keen to assist the police unless they have something to hide of course.When are you going to substantiate your claim that the Supreme Court still considers the McCanns are suspects in their child’s disappearance? Ever?
Why not? She was simply doing what she did from day one. Undermining the PJ, putting her version of events out there and looking for sympathy and donations.If you believe that then clearly the woman is evil personified - is that what you think she is then?
Very few of which have ever been substantiated or in the words of the Portuguese Supreme Court, they have never been able to prove that they were not involved in the child's mysterious disappearance. Their conduct was suspicious as was the refusal by their friends to cooperate fully with the investigation. I must say. such a thing is virtually unheard of as the parents and close associates of any missing infant are normally extremely keen to assist the police unless they have something to hide of course.
If you believe that then clearly the woman is evil personified - is that what you think she is then?
Is there any proof that she's not?
Why not? She was simply doing what she did from day one. Undermining the PJ, putting her version of events out there and looking for sympathy and donations.
Very few of which have ever been substantiated or in the words of the Portuguese Supreme Court, they have never been able to prove that they were not involved in the child's mysterious disappearance. Their conduct was suspicious as was the refusal by their friends to cooperate fully with the investigation. I must say. such a thing is virtually unheard of as the parents and close associates of any missing infant are normally extremely keen to assist the police unless they have something to hide of course.
Given your low opinion of Portuguese justice, if they had wanted to send to McCanns to jail, they would have done so, irrespective of evidence.
Given your low opinion of Portuguese justice, if they had wanted to send to McCanns to jail, they would have done so, irrespective of evidence.
Actually it wasn't for the want of trying; Kate wondered why anyone would give Amaral and his theories the time of day given his criminal conviction for falsifying documents resulting from the torture of the mother of another missing child'
At the time Kate wrote her book Joana Cipriano was still missing and her mother was still in jail having been convicted of her murder ... oh ... and no-one was looking for Joana because she was officially dead.
Even with no proof of Madeleine's death such as the 'proof' which convicted Leonor Cipriano of murder ... only Kate and Gerry McCann's persistence kept the search for Madeleine going.
No-one looked for Joana.
During one of the interrogations, Joăo, who has mood shifts, ends up confessing voluntarily to having beaten Joana, who hit a wall with her head and collapsed dead on the floor. He says he was having s.e.x with Leonor while the girl had been out on her errand, but Joana returned and saw them. She said she would tell Leandro about what she saw. The child tried to run out of the house, but was dragged back in by Joăo and Leonor. Leonor slapped her, and then Joăo also slapped the girl. The child flew against a wall, bumped her head and dropped dead on the floor. He then cut up her body and stored it in plastic bags in the family's freezer. Cristóvăo, the detective who is interrogating him, asks some specific questions about the process of cutting. Joăo's answers chillingly detail the process, including correct information about the difficulty in separating certain joints. He also tells Cristóvăo that all 4 adults - Joăo, Leonor, Leandro and Carlos - ended up knowing that Joana was dead, as he and Leonor showed the bags in the freezer to Leandro and Carlos when they arrived home, later that evening. Joăo later repeats his confession in the presence of his lawyer, and duly signs it.
The detectives return to Figueira, now with a forensics team, to check whether the information that Joăo has given them yields some traces of evidence. Their discoveries turn out to be much more than they bargained for. They discover the orange flip-flops that Joana was supposedly wearing the evening she vanished. Then they turn the uv light to the wall where Joăo told them the child had hit her head before collapsing dead on the floor.
Her face is clearly 'drawn' on the wall, also two small hands that left a trace that goes down the wall, showing Joana's last movement. They also discover the prints of her hands on the frame of the house's outer door, that were left there at the moment when she tried to escape. Joăo had told Cristóvăo how Joana had tried to cling to the door frame, and they had to pull her back in by her legs. Everything is photographed.
all absolute rubbish imo...where did this come from...what evidence is there that is true...we know that amaral was convicted for lying....the other detectives tried also lied when they claimed cipriano fell down the stairs..
if you want to believe the PJ thats up to you...I dont believe a word they say
all absolute rubbish imo...where did this come from...what evidence is there that is true...we know that amaral was convicted for lying....the other detectives tried also lied when they claimed cipriano fell down the stairs..
if you want to believe the PJ thats up to you...I dont believe a word they say
You prefer to believe that a mother wouldn't report her 8 year old daughter as missing when she didn't come home one night.
I dont beleive anything said on this case without supporting evidence......the PJ claimed there was blood...what they failed to do was take a sample of this blood and have it analysed. Was there any blood or did the pj lie...the blood found in the fridge wasnt even confirmed as human...could have been animal. Cipriano was convicted without any forensic evidence despite calims by the pj....conbvicted on a confession beaten out of her...justice portuguese style
There's no point getting upset about it.
It isn't going to bring Joana back.
im not in the slightest upset....im an observer....and thers no proof shes dead
The Courts have declared that she was murdered, therefore she is dead.
In what way is it rubbish?
But it's obvious she is.Do you have a cite for this, ie: the verified sequence of events leading to the arrival of the first police on the scene?
Why else wouldn't her mother report her missing pronto?
In what way is it rubbish?If a court decree that night is day does that then make it so?
Seriously.
Who wouldn't report their 8 year old missing when they failed to return home from the shops?
Only McCann supporters it would appear.
One straight from the McCanns guide to good parenting handbook.
Seriously.Once again please point to the evidence for this claim. I’m not doubting it, I would just like to read it without the WUM propaganda attached.
Who wouldn't report their 8 year old missing when they failed to return home from the shops?
Only McCann supporters it would appear.
One straight from the McCanns guide to good parenting handbook.
If a court decree that night is day does that then make it so?
Witness CC3, PJ's criminal investigation coordinator, said they began investigating the case 9 days after the CC's disappearance, and the case was classified as a kidnapping / abduction crime. He became aware of the statements made at GNR and envisioned the television interviews, astonishingly the posture of his mother, who was dressed in black and seemed to be lying, and spoke of her daughter in the past. They began to take statements and decided to go over to the BB house. When they got there they saw that the interior of the room had been washed, and such a wash contrasted with the carelessness of cleanliness and tidiness of the rest of the house, but still they found bloody traces on the floor, the walls, in the bucket and mop and on the soles of some sneakers that were in the room - the witness confirmed the search and seizure of fls.
http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano
Why would a court do such a thing ?
Once again please point to the evidence for this claim. I’m not doubting it, I would just like to read it without the WUM propaganda attached.
It's all here on the Cipriano thread.
The shop owner called the police the day after Joana disappeared.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2966.0
just because a court rules on a disputed verdict that joanna died does not make it a fact...that is a simple truth
Who is disputing the verdict ? - anyone of consequence ?
Its on this thread ...from you...that the mccanns did it...that doesnt make it true. It seems to me the pj told a lot of lies about the case....they lied in court re the torture trial...amaral was convicted of lying....I see no raeson to believe a word they say
if you read the article where GA is interviewd by a portuguese journalist ...it seems very few portuguese think cipraino is guilty
You surprise me.
It doesn't matter what people think - its action that counts
Who is disputing the verdict ? - anyone of consequence ?
im just giving my opinion based on the facts...nothing here counts...not sure why I bother
That's right - your opinion counts for tiddly squat, particularly where legal decisions are concerned.
The Cipriano's mother wants nothing to do with the pair.
Mum knows best.
https://www.portugalresident.com/2019/03/12/tragic-joanas-uncle-out-of-jail-after-15-years/
As far as the Portuguese court is concerned she is. Get over it.
could we have a cite for this
that isnt true either...its tiresome having to explain basic facts to posters who claim to have a level of intelligence..
the court ruling is not an absolute statement of fact...
We don't live in a world of abstracts. The courts decision is final - unless countered by a higher court.
Witness AA7, military of GNR, said that on 13 September 2004, at the GNR Post of Portimăo, between 10h30m / 11h, received the complaint of the disappearance of the CC. It was the mother who made the complaint, accompanied by defendant AA. Defendant BB looked sad but did not cry. The witness received the photographs her mother was taking and asked if there was any reason for CC to run away from home or if she had any suspicions, and the accused BB replied no.
i never said it wasnt final....I just explained what it means to you
It's all here on the Cipriano thread.How did the shop owner know Joana hadn’t got home?
The shop owner called the police the day after Joana disappeared.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2966.0
So it doesn't matter what you think.
To give a trivial example -
You get caught by a police speed van. You dispute you were speeding and take it to court. You lose.
You may believe you weren't speed, but you still have the three points.
so what evidence was there that you were speeding....just a policemans statement..
And the camera recording - but it doesn't matter, the court decision means you still get the fine and the points.
Way way way Off Topic folks ... please get back to Kate's book. I will leave what has been posted for John to decide what happens to it ... I'm going to start deleting anything which is off topic. Thank you
they have never had the opportunuty to prove their non involvemnent...dont say the recon or answering 48 stupid queswtions would have proved anytyhing...it patently wouldnt.
The Mccanns did fully assist the police and it was only when it became clear to them that the PJ hadnt got a clue it became neccessary to do something to stop the silly games the pj were playing. Its called put up or shut up...and thats what kate did....kate exposed the fact that the PJ had no real evidence against her and were just on a fishing trip to try and find some. Well done Kate...she did exactly the right thing
When are you going to substantiate your claim that the Supreme Court still considers the McCanns are suspects in their child’s disappearance? Ever?
A pathetic excuse if I may say so.
more off topic..and opinion presented as fact...do you have no respect for the rules of the forum
Well the SC did state that they haven't been proved innocent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
and a pathetic respnse from you ...if I may say so...which does not address any of the points ive raised...its also off topic which Brietta has said she will remove
Not off topic at all. Someone claimed that the offerings in Kate McCann's book were corroborated, I merely pointed out that most have not been.
It's related to the original claim about the book so very much on topic.
more off topic...of course they havent been ruled innocent...no court in any country rules anyone innocent....again Im surprised I have to post this basic fact
The SC didn't have to state what they did and only did so after McCann supporters tried to claim that they had been cleared. The McCanns have not been cleared as far as Portugal's highest court is concerned.
In my opinion the contents of that post are beneath contempt. Kate's book tells us exactly the state she was in as a direct result of Madeleine's disappearance for which she blamed herself.
Far from undermining anyone let alone the judicial police she could barely function.
Her 'version of events' was that of a witness and again she writes eloquently and very movingly of what happened when she discovered Madeleine gone.
Kate required no donations. She wrote her book to make money to bolster Madeleine's fund ... and her best seller did that in spades.
Like many another relative of a missing person Kate isn't touting sympathy but she does express gratitude to those who have morally supported those whose actions are on Madeleine behalf and for the hope and inspiration conveyed to her, Gerry and the family by well wishers.
The SC didn't have to state what they did and only did so after McCann supporters tried to claim that they had been cleared. The McCanns have not been cleared as far as Portugal's highest court is concerned.
I could never support a parent whose stupid selfish actions created the unfortunate event in the first place.
I think it would be very odd indeed for the parent of a missing child to cooperate with the police in an investigation designed to send them to jail.
In Kate's book the 'tosser' episode describes Kate's realisation that the PJ were out to get her meaning that no-one was actually investigating her child's disappearance and she had become 'the investigation'.
This gave her added strength because of the realisation that without her and Gerry Madeleine was not being looked for ... and as events have proved in retrospect that is exactly what happened ... until the police reviews of 2011 they and therefore Madeleine were on their own.
The McCanns didn't like being investigated by cops which they clearly thought were unintelligent and stupid. I know who my money is on.
For davel's benefit, the book was nothing more than an attempt to point the blame anywhere except at her own door.
I dont need any advice from someone who clearly has a poor understanding of the evidence
Kate's book is the biggest load of CRAP I've ever read.
Kate's book is the biggest load of CRAP I've ever read. She goes on holiday with three toddlers and returns home with two. When asked to answer the simplest of questions she bottles it and refuses. And then she decides to write a book looking for sympathy.
i actually laughed out loud when I read ithat..thats your opinion...which is bacically worthless
I laughed too at her bloody audacity. She should have stayed in Portugal and looked for her child, not expected everyone else to do it for her.
I laughed too at her bloody audacity. She should have stayed in Portugal and looked for her child, not expected everyone else to do it for her.
Kate's book is the biggest load of CRAP I've ever read. She goes on holiday with three toddlers and returns home with two. When asked to answer the simplest of questions she bottles it and refuses. And then she decides to write a book looking for sympathy and blaming just about every Portuguese cop who had the bad luck to cross her path.Not that you’re biased or owt. You seem terribly bitter, which I find a bit strange...
We're all going to look rather silly when SY catch the abductor & Maddie turns up alive & well.
Shouldn't be much longer now.
The McCanns didn't like being investigated by cops which they clearly thought were unintelligent and stupid. I know who my money is on.
For davel's benefit, the book was nothing more than an attempt to point the blame anywhere except at her own door. Poor me comes across in every page I have read. That fcuking tosser Ricardo Paiva, Tweedledee and Tweedledum were incompetent.
According to KM she received a call from Cherie Blair (one Catholic, who was also fond of discussing her sex life, to another) who put KM in touch with Catherine MeyerOh dear, another one sounding bitter and resentful tonight. Is it the fault of Kate or her book that Cherie Blair contacted her? I tell you what though, had it been little Waynetta missing from a caravan park in Grimbsy y’all wouldn’t still be picking the bones over and giving them a good gnaw 12 years later...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Meyer,_Baroness_Meyer
Imagine, a young couple from Grimbsy who met in residential care scrape enough money together to take their 3 young children to Yarmouth for a week in a caravan. The parents decide to leave their sleeping children in the unlocked caravan while they go out for 'happy hour' at the onsite bar some 50m from the caravan. When they return they find 3 year old Waynetta missing. Would they receive a call from Cherie Blair putting them in touch with Catherine Meyer?
According to KM she received a call from Cherie Blair (one Catholic, who was also fond of discussing her sex life, to another) who put KM in touch with Catherine Meyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Meyer,_Baroness_Meyer
Imagine, a young couple from Grimbsy who met in residential care scrape enough money together to take their 3 young children to Yarmouth for a week in a caravan. The parents decide to leave their sleeping children in the unlocked caravan while they go out for 'happy hour' at the onsite bar some 50m from the caravan. When they return they find 3 year old Waynetta missing. Would they receive a call from Cherie Blair putting them in touch with Catherine Meyer?
Oh dear, another one sounding bitter and resentful tonight. Is it the fault of Kate or her book that Cherie Blair contacted her? I tell you what though, had it been little Waynetta missing from a caravan park in Grimbsy y’all wouldn’t still be picking the bones over and giving them a good gnaw 12 years later...
Oh dear, another one sounding bitter and resentful tonight. Is it the fault of Kate or her book that Cherie Blair contacted her? I tell you what though, had it been little Waynetta missing from a caravan park in Grimbsy y’all wouldn’t still be picking the bones over and giving them a good gnaw 12 years later...
In my opinion your opening sentence is openly bigoted sectarianism.
In my opinion your closing paragraph is nothing more or less than chanting a sceptic mantra often found adorning the comment sections of any publication which prints anything about the McCann family.
Your post consists therefore in my opinion of disgusting sceptic chanting unworthy of civilised debate let alone a mixed forum and not a sceptic cess pit where such sentiments are considered not offensive but laudable..
No not bitter and resentful just highlighting one rule for one and one for another.And who made the rules?
And who made the rules?
The McCanns didn't like being investigated by cops which they clearly thought were unintelligent and stupid. I know who my money is on.
For davel's benefit, the book was nothing more than an attempt to point the blame anywhere except at her own door. Poor me comes across in every page I have read. That fcuking tosser Ricardo Paiva, Tweedledee and Tweedledum were incompetent.
It's a book written after studying the files e.g she could now explain her fingerprints by now looking out of the window which was not in her original statements. Nothing like hindsight! They don't mention why they deleted mobile records and received new mobiles on 4 May 2007 or the reason for all her mobile activity on Tuesday quiz night etc. Some say it was to do with Gerry's flirting with the quiz girl. Gerry stormed off the next night - was that connected to quiz night and the real reason why Kate slept in the spare bed?
According to Kate's book she and her husband learned a lot about the abduction of children after their daughter disappeared. Very early on they decided that something should be done;
3rd June 2007
We discussed the need we felt to do our utmost to prevent this from happening to another child; to prevent another family from having to go through what we were going through. We had to ensure that something positive for someone, even if it wasn’t us, came out of this horrific experience. [madeleine]
I wonder what they have been doing to help? Especially during the years since Operation Grange took over the 'search for Madeleine'.
According to KM's PB, GM has a reputation as a 'ladies man'!
Not really just highlighting the hypocrisy re Catholicism and sex ie solely for procreation!In my opinion your post smacks as an example of religious bigotry try to justify it how you will.
Not really just highlighting the fact that had the McCanns been teenage parents and working/underclass in all probability they would have received short shrift for leaving their children in such perilous circumstances as opposed to phone calls from the PM's wife wanting to assist.
And who enforces them?Whatever you’re suggesting it is hardly the fault of the McCanns is it?
According to Kate's book she and her husband learned a lot about the abduction of children after their daughter disappeared. Very early on they decided that something should be done;Well they went on a massive publicity drive to ensure that as many people as possible knew about the case, (which is now the most widely known Missing Persons case ever) to highlight the issue of stranger abduction, they hired detectives that uncovered other incidents of stranger intrusion into holiday apartments which were subsequently investigated by OG, after they had pleaded with the government to get Madeleine’s case reviewed, then there’s Kate’s work with Missing People charity, what else do you feel they should have been doing?
3rd June 2007
We discussed the need we felt to do our utmost to prevent this from happening to another child; to prevent another family from having to go through what we were going through. We had to ensure that something positive for someone, even if it wasn’t us, came out of this horrific experience. [madeleine]
I wonder what they have been doing to help? Especially during the years since Operation Grange took over the 'search for Madeleine'.
In my opinion your post smacks as an example of religious bigotry try to justify it how you will.
The conversation with Cherie Blair as recounted by Kate McCann makes absolutely no reference to either Catholicism or sex.
Why would it?
Extraordinary that their Catholic faith and what you suppose are their resultant sexual practices were the first thought for you to post about and a matter for discussion. Totally ignoring that the purpose of the phone call was one woman concerned enough about another mother to make contact to direct her to an organisation offering practical assistance in her hour of need.
You have absolutely no idea beyond the prejudices which you are happy - nay, eager to place in the public domain, about what actions Prime Ministers' wives might take upon themselves to pursue ... for example Samantha Cameron assisted the homeless for many years: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/samantha-cameron-regularly-makes-breakfast-for-homeless-people-in-london-9898381.html
Whatever you’re suggesting it is hardly the fault of the McCanns is it?
For me reading KM's book everything is clouded by the fact they left MM night after night for hours at a time in an unlocked holiday apartment. Had the McCanns been teenage parents from dysfunctional backgrounds I would absolve them of all responsibility on the basis of immaturity and in all probability an absence of good parenting role models but nothing could be further from the truth with the McCanns.
Was it a case that up until MM disappeared their lives had been so gilded they were unable to conceive of anything going wrong? Or did they have such a sense of entitlement they thought they could and should have it all and not have to make any compromises?
It's a book written after studying the files e.g she could now explain her fingerprints by now looking out of the window which was not in her original statements. Nothing like hindsight! They don't mention why they deleted mobile records and received new mobiles on 4 May 2007 or the reason for all her mobile activity on Tuesday quiz night etc. Some say it was to do with Gerry's flirting with the quiz girl. Gerry stormed off the next night - was that connected to quiz night and the real reason why Kate slept in the spare bed?
In my opinion your post smacks as an example of religious bigotry try to justify it how you will.
The conversation with Cherie Blair as recounted by Kate McCann makes absolutely no reference to either Catholicism or sex.
Why would it?
Extraordinary that their Catholic faith and what you suppose are their resultant sexual practices were the first thought for you to post about and a matter for discussion. Totally ignoring that the purpose of the phone call was one woman concerned enough about another mother to make contact to direct her to an organisation offering practical assistance in her hour of need.
You have absolutely no idea beyond the prejudices which you are happy - nay, eager to place in the public domain, about what actions Prime Ministers' wives might take upon themselves to pursue ... for example Samantha Cameron assisted the homeless for many years: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/samantha-cameron-regularly-makes-breakfast-for-homeless-people-in-london-9898381.html
Its the sheer hypocrisy that gets to me.Whose hypocrisy? Cherie Blair’s?
P157:
A colleague of GM's put them, GM/KM, in touch with a firm of international lawyers specialising in family law:
"After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting".
Was the barrister aware the patio doors were unlocked? In any event the above completely contradicts guidelines from NSPCC:
https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone
Yes, Indeed Pathy.So you don’t think there were any huge contradictions in the statements they all made in Portugal? You completely dismiss judicial secrecy as a reason why the Tapas group did not give press interviews while the case was live? Why do you think Gerry did answer all the PJ’s questions then? Did he not get the memo?
they had time to see what was written so tthey could over write it with hindsight. Gerry claiming the abductor was in the apartment at the same time as him -only probem with that is no open windows or whoooshing for him
I believe That is the reason for kate not answering the questions and the silence pact from the T7 and the reconstruction. There was a huge chance of contradition- while still in Portgual. They were think less about MBM and more about their reputation.
I can't see what is bigoted or prejudicial about highlighting the fact that Catholics choose to ignore the Church's teachings when it's convenient.
If the Pope can forgive them why can’t the McCann bashers? Good point.
Didn't the Vatican pull the Madeleine article from their website?So do you think the Pope forgave them for their sins and then changed his mind?
So do you think the Pope forgave them for their sins and then changed his mind?
So do you think the Pope forgave them for their sins and then changed his mind?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* seems that way doesn't it?No.
The McCanns didn't have a private meeting with the Pope, you know. They attended one of his weekly audiences which are open to anyone. Around 25,000 other people were also present. He did bless them and a picture of Madeleine but he met other selected worshippers also.Did I say they had a private meeting with them? I am well acquainted with the facts, but thanks once again for trying to put me straight.
Didn't the Vatican pull all mention of the McCann's visit from their website?
Apparently ignoring the worldly notion of innocent until proven guilty, the Vatican has removed all mention of the Pope's meeting with the McCanns from its website, just in case.
Did I say they had a private meeting with them? I am well acquainted with the facts, but thanks once again for trying to put me straight.
Why the mention of 'forgiving them their sins' then? Did someone suggest the Pope had done that?Could you refresh your memory by reading the posts I was replying to and not just my posts out of comtext? Same goes for the other thread.
Kate using her key to open the church side door.More anonymous "witnesses" from the pen of a convicted perjurer. Anonymous lawyer? ~ anonymous Irish teenager? ~ anonymous waiter? Thought Amaral's book was based on the files supposedly ... can't recall seeing anything about that lot there.
(https://i.ibb.co/xLf02PH/Screenshot-2019-11-04-at-22-46-48.png)
'We had information three figures went into the church via a side door at night. The parents had the key to the church' Goncalo Amaral
Kate McCann wrote about what actually happened?There’s no confirmation that she did not report her fears either, and as for point two is that really all you could find? An “impression”?
I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated. [madeleine]
There is no confirmation of this report.
She also gives the impression that the PJ left the family in 5A and they then took the twins to 5H. In reality the twins were in 4G when the PJ left, having been moved before the photographs of the apartment were taken.
There’s no confirmation that she did not report her fears either, and as for point two is that really all you could find? An “impression”? How desperate.
If she did, then her husband, her friends, two GNR officers and a member of the OC staff all ignored the danger the twins were in. &%%6Not apparent to “ourselves, fellow guests and the Mark Warner staff” who were out searching I would think. Do you actually believe she had “no idea” what was going on that night, not one? And you think you’re in a better position to know do you? Why don’t you write a book about it then and set the record straight as you clearly believe you know more about it than she does.
Kate McCann was careful not to be specific on certain points. It's true that the PJ left, but not that they left the family in 5A. It's true that they all ended up in 5H, but there was an unmentioned detour to 4G first.
if there were any specific police searches overnight, they were not apparent. The only searches I was aware of were those carried out by ourselves, fellow guests and the Mark Warner staff [madeleine]
Not apparent to who? To Kate McCann, who didn't leave 5A so she had no idea who searched, but she feels she's qualified to comment nevertheless. Still, she manages to suggest that the police response was lacking.
More anonymous "witnesses" from the pen of a convicted perjurer. Anonymous lawyer? ~ anonymous Irish teenager? ~ anonymous waiter? Thought Amaral's book was based on the files supposedly ... can't recall seeing anything about that lot there.
Kate doesn't have to rely on such inventions in her book ... because she writes about what actually happened. Nor was there anything secretive or mysterious about the fact she had been given the key to the church.
What point is it were you insinuating in your post?
You forgot to add IMO there.If you’re a mod you don’t have to. Angelo never does.
More anonymous "witnesses" from the pen of a convicted perjurer. Anonymous lawyer? ~ anonymous Irish teenager? ~ anonymous waiter? Thought Amaral's book was based on the files supposedly ... can't recall seeing anything about that lot there.
Kate doesn't have to rely on such inventions in her book ... because she writes about what actually happened. Nor was there anything secretive or mysterious about the fact she had been given the key to the church.
What point is it were you insinuating in your post?
G-Unit has claimed Kate McCann “is not qualified to comment” about the early searches for her daughter. Who is qualified to comment then?
I would say in order of reliability those tasked with looking on a professional basis eg GNR officers and then the OC employees who had some sort of 'missing child' procedure to draw upon and then volunteer searchers including members of T9.So do you think Kate had no interaction with those who conducted the searches, and therefore had no idea what was going on around PdL that night, and is therefore not qualified to comment in her own book about her own child’s disappearance? That when she says “police searches were not apparent” then that is not based on anyone else’s opinion apart from her own, sat in Apt 5 a? And if the GNR are best qualified to comment on the searches but packed it in after a few hours are they still best placed to comment? Do you think anyone on this forum is better qualified than Kate to say what searches were carried out be whom that night?
Afaik KM did not search at night as GM asked her to stay at 5A in case MM was found.
How can she write about "what actually happened" when she wasn't physically present most of the time? And even when she was physically present it doesn't make her factually correct its simply her version of events.She wasn’t physically present in her own life and the events that happened in Pdl after Madeleine’s disappearance? Where was she? Floating on the Astral Plane?
This is where the McCann story falls apart for me:I suggest this evening before sunset you stand in a lit corridor and open a door into a dark room., with the curtains drawn When you look in can you see absolutely nothing? Please report back
Page 66:
On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week. This early in the season, the nights were not warm, there was no need to open a window and we reasoned that having the shutters down and the curtains drawn would keep it cool during the day. Although it meant the room was very dark, the children weren't going to be in there during the daytime, and at night we always left the door ajar to let in a little light.
GM tells us in his wit stat of 4th May when he checked the children at 8.30 pm the room was "totally dark"
KM tells us in her PB, and in numerous vids, that when she checked the children at circa 10 pm she was initially unable to determine whether or not MM was in her bed as the room was so dark. And yet on page 92 she tells us that when GM checked the children at circa 9 pm he paused to look at MM and thought to himself she's so beautiful. Perhaps GM eats lots of carrots 8)-)))
She wasn’t physically present in her own life and the events that happened in Pdl after Madeleine’s disappearance? Where was she? Floating on the Astral Plane?
I suggest this evening before sunset you stand in a lit corridor and open a door into a dark room., with the curtains drawn When you look in can you see absolutely nothing? Please report back
No need to carry out any such experiment when the McCanns clearly contradict each other:
Daytime - KM describes room as "very dark" - shutter down, window closed, curtains drawn
8.30 pm - GM "totally dark" - shutter down, window closed, curtains drawn
9.00 pm - GM thinks to himself how beautiful MM looked - shutter down, window closed, curtains drawn
10. 00 pm - KM unable to determine whether MM in bed or not as room so dark - shutter raised, window open, curtains whooshing
Not apparent to “ourselves, fellow guests and the Mark Warner staff” who were out searching I would think. Do you actually believe she had “no idea” what was going on that night, not one? And you think you’re in a better position to know do you? Why don’t you write a book about it then and set the record straight as you clearly believe you know more about it than she does.
Perhaps Gerry opened the door a little wider to let in more light...he also used the toilet so that light might be on too.
A, simple explanation that could explain all and show theres no contradiction
But KM tells us it was "very dark" during the day due to the way in which they left the bedroom for the entire week ie shutter down and curtains closed so how would any artificial light from the bathroom light up when natural light flooding in during the day didn't?
No GM didn't open the door a little wider he found it opened further than he left it which according to him was the reason, and only time, he actually went in the room to carry out a physical check as he thought MM might have been up and about. This then brings us to another anomaly: On Wed morning KM tells us that MM asked at breakfast why her parents hadn't come when she and Sean were crying. KM tells us this is the reason they can be so precise about their Thu checks as they didn't want the children waking to find no one there. So given GM found the door moved, which according to him was a first which he put down to MM up and about, why didn't he mention to KM when he returned to the table? Why was MO allowed to check at 9.30 pm who had no knowledge re the position of the door?
But KM tells us it was "very dark" during the day due to the way in which they left the bedroom for the entire week ie shutter down and curtains closed so how would any artificial light from the bathroom light up when natural light flooding in during the day didn't?
No GM didn't open the door a little wider he found it opened further than he left it which according to him was the reason, and only time, he actually went in the room to carry out a physical check as he thought MM might have been up and about. This then brings us to another anomaly: On Wed morning KM tells us that MM asked at breakfast why her parents hadn't come when she and Sean were crying. KM tells us this is the reason they can be so precise about their Thu checks as they didn't want the children waking to find no one there. So given GM found the door moved, which according to him was a first which he put down to MM up and about, why didn't he mention to KM when he returned to the table? Why was MO allowed to check at 9.30 pm who had no knowledge re the position of the door?
So the door was open wider... Which would explain the increase light. It's a tiny anomaly that almost certainly has, a, simple explanation.. You see it as a serious red flag... That's just your opinion.
As it's plainly clear to me the mccannns are not involved I would expect there's quite a simple explanation
You seem to be saying that a simple explanation must exists because you have previously decided the McCanns are not involved.
On the other hand you say you decided the McCanns are not involved after examining all the evidence.
Reading Kate's book with your mind already made up suggests you didn't read it with an open mind.
So the door was open wider... Which would explain the increase light. It's a tiny anomaly that almost certainly has, a, simple explanation.. You see it as a serious red flag... That's just your opinion.
As it's plainly clear to me the mccannns are not involved I would expect there's quite a simple explanation
No its not just my opinion. The McCann's version of events clearly contradict. The fact you choose to ignore them means you're unlikely to be in a position to look at the case objectively.
I've never said the McCanns were directly involved in MM's disappearance but that doesn't mean to say I have to swallow everything they say when their version of events don't stack up.
I look at the case entirely objectively... After your claim to have claim solved the case I don't think you are in a position to criticise..
I don't swallow anything... I'm perhaps just better at sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to evidence
If GM found the door as he left it then there would be no need for him to check on MM and this imo is what actually happened. This would mean MM could have been abducted (for those of us who believe she was) from any time between 8.30 pm and 10.00 pm.
Anyone who is unable to countenance the McCanns might be wrong with their recollections is unable to view the case objectively.
Why do you insist on constantly referring to my claim to have solved the case? What has it got to do with the thread? If you want to comment re this here's the appropriate thread:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10983.msg558773#msg558773
Thinking about it further did GM actually venture beyond the lounge? We know he was a big footy fan and KM had commented about how long he was gone thinking he might have been watching footy on the telly: UEFA semi-finals. Did this along with his chat to JW take up all his time as opposed to a loo break and checking on MM?
How would it look if when asked if MM was present at 9 pm where she was left alone in the unlocked apartment if he said dunno I didn't hear anything and just stopped for 5 mins to watch the footy on the telly?!
This is where the McCann story falls apart for me:
Page 66:
On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week. This early in the season, the nights were not warm, there was no need to open a window and we reasoned that having the shutters down and the curtains drawn would keep it cool during the day. Although it meant the room was very dark, the children weren't going to be in there during the daytime, and at night we always left the door ajar to let in a little light.
GM tells us in his wit stat of 4th May when he checked the children at 8.30 pm the room was "totally dark"
KM tells us in her PB, and in numerous vids, that when she checked the children at circa 10 pm she was initially unable to determine whether or not MM was in her bed as the room was so dark. And yet on page 92 she tells us that when GM checked the children at circa 9 pm he paused to look at MM and thought to himself she's so beautiful. Perhaps GM eats lots of carrots 8)-)))
Thinking about it further did GM actually venture beyond the lounge? We know he was a big footy fan and KM had commented about how long he was gone thinking he might have been watching footy on the telly: UEFA semi-finals. Did this along with his chat to JW take up all his time as opposed to a loo break and checking on MM?
How would it look if when asked if MM was present at 9 pm where she was left alone in the unlocked apartment if he said dunno I didn't hear anything and just stopped for 5 mins to watch the footy on the telly?!
I've never said the mccanns may be wrong with their recollection... So you're wrong on that.. I've said there may well be a, quite innocent explanation... That's an open mind
For the record it could be that the mccanns are two of the most evil parents, who ever lived and I'm totally wrong about them... I just don't see thst as a realistic possibility
And it might just be that one or both felt so ashamed, embarrassed, guilty and humiliated by their sheer selfishness and stupidity of leaving their 3 children all < 4 yoa in an unlocked holiday apartment that they dished up a slightly more palatable narrative.
GM was obviously concerned enough about claims of parental neglect given a barrister flew out on 11th May who reassured the McCanns that their evening childcare arrangements fell 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'. And yet this barrister might well have been quite happy to prosecute lesser mortals had their young charges disappeared in the same circumstances. ?8)@)-)
He didn't seem to want to discuss 'footie' when Jane mentioned it in 'Madeleine was here'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY 10:15
Although this barrister has been quoted by Kate McCann there's no evidence as to who he was or what he said, just hearsay.
Good point. She only quotes the name of the firm: International Family Law Group. This apparently came about from a paralegal based in Leic, via a colleague of GM's.
https://www.iflg.uk.com/
No he didn't and his body language which accompanies his assertions about when he last saw MM and that his world was shattered a few minutes afterwards suggests to me he did not have a baldy clue whether MM was in her bed at circa 9 pm and whether or not the shutter was raised and window open.
He had to account for the length of time his check took. KM attributed this to watching the footy on the teli He has some get out of jail card having met JW but he needs to make up more time so invents a loo break imo. Taking into account all the surrounding info from the main protagonists I think he's serving up a slightly more palatable narrative. He didn't venture beyond the lounge; had no idea about the bedroom door, shutter and window; and the last time he saw MM was post tennis pre leaving for tapas.
They weren't prosecuted.... That isn't hearsay.... The Portuguese, archiving report explains why
I didn't say they were but we only have KM's account that a barrister from IFLG said that what the McCanns were doing of an evening was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'.
What body language?
Gerry was late getting back to the Tapas because he stopped to chat to Jez, not because he was watching football.
Is that of any importance
In what context?
He didn't seem to want to discuss 'footie' when Jane mentioned it in 'Madeleine was here'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY 10:15
Lace we've pored all over this and the evidence from GM and KM is highly contradictory.
The only person who knows what he did or didn't do when he checked at circa 9 pm is GM. The fact he said this that or the other doesn't make it factually correct.
I don't think the evidence from Kate and Gerry is highly contradictory. Whether Gerry said Madeleine was under the quilt cover or on top of it or that Kate said she was under it or on top of it, is ridiculous as a child can easily just pull the quilt off herself. Whether Gerry could see Madeleine in her bed when he said it was dark is not contradictory either, it was dark but not dark enough that he couldn't make out Madeleine in her bed, when Kate checked about an hour later it was even darker and she had to turn the light on to see. Nothing of this is anything sinister and certainly doesn't come down to the fact that Gerry didn't check on Madeleine which was why he had gone to 5a in the first place. He met Jeremy that was why he was late getting back.
I don't think the evidence from Kate and Gerry is highly contradictory. Whether Gerry said Madeleine was under the quilt cover or on top of it or that Kate said she was under it or on top of it, is ridiculous as a child can easily just pull the quilt off herself. Whether Gerry could see Madeleine in her bed when he said it was dark is not contradictory either, it was dark but not dark enough that he couldn't make out Madeleine in her bed, when Kate checked about an hour later it was even darker and she had to turn the light on to see. Nothing of this is anything sinister and certainly doesn't come down to the fact that Gerry didn't check on Madeleine which was why he had gone to 5a in the first place. He met Jeremy that was why he was late getting back.
What body language?
Gerry was late getting back to the Tapas because he stopped to chat to Jez, not because he was watching football.
why is it important in any context......or do we just not acccept a word kate says.....i think thats a bit stupid
Why would he? They were doing a reconstruction, he was focused on that. Maybe if it hadn't have been such a stressful occasion and he wasn't doing a reconstruction he would have laughed at what Jane said.
He certainly spoke to Jes, but Jes never confirmed what the time was.
All the lawyers I know are quite circumspect in offering up opinion for obvious reasons ie those who decide who's right and who isn't are often judges and jurors not barristers.
Do we have anything in writing from this barrister? Was he aware that the McCanns went out every evening from 8.30 pm to 11.00 pm plus leaving the patio doors unlocked?
Why does the barrister's opinion deviate wildly from guidelines and recommendations drawn up by NSPCC?
Its up to you what you choose to accept at face value.
But Lace how do you explain that GM said the only time he ever physically checked on the children was when he checked at circa 9 pm on 3rd May and the reason he gave for doing so is that the door was open further than how he left it at circa 8.30 pm. He attributed the moving door initially to MM up and about. Now we're told by KM that at breakfast on 3rd May MM had a question for her parents: 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?'. KM claims she and GM were disconcerted and agreed they had to be hyper-vigilant with their checks in case one or more children woke up in between checks. Given GM claims the door moved between 8.30 pm and 9.00 pm which he initially put down to MM up and about why didn't he mention this to KM when he returned to the table? And if he did mention they why did KM allow MO to check at 9.30 pm who had no knowledge about how he should find the door?
The above is just one of many contradictory aspects of their accounts. Another is that KM tells on page 73 that their checks provided a higher level of attention that the checks provided by MW at similar resorts in that the McCanns were going into the apartment and looking as well as listening and yet:
- GM tells us his circa 9.00 pm check on 3rd May was the first time he had actually entered the bedroom during a check.
- KM tells us that when she checked at circa 10 pm she found the door open further than they had left it and assumed MO had moved it. She then went to return it to its normal position (10 cm ajar) when suddenly it slammed shut. So again she had no intention of going into the bedroom she simply intended to return the door to its original position.
You don't know what he was thinking or what motivated him. Maybe he knew there was no football on TV on 3rd May, maybe he just wanted to get back to his hotel and relax, maybe he was concentrating on getting his opinion accross; the one the other two disagreed with.
barristers give opinion on law....I see no reason to to disbeleive kate. she may of course be lying but i doubt it. We have established that parents leave children in locked hotel rooms ...they re not prosecuted...the guidelines are guidelines .....not law
Parents leaving children in locked hotel rooms is completely different to what was going on at 5A. And afaik when parents leave children in locked hotel rooms it is usually whilst they're on site usually dining in the hotel restaurant. Effectively they are in the same building as the left children.
We have no idea who the barrister was and whether or not he was basing it on UK law or Portuguese? We have no relevant case law to know how the law would interpret such an event.
KM doesn't need to lie for info to be incorrect since much of what she offers up is based on her perception.
You must remember that they didn't know that Madeleine would be abducted on the evening of the 3rd of May. You are talking as if they knew an abductor was on the prowl. So Gerry found the door open further that they had left it, he wondered if Madeleine had gone to the toilet, he wasn't thinking 'I wonder if an abductor has been in the bedroom'. He left and probably thought no more about it. It was the first time Gerry had gone into the bedroom on his check, it was the first time he did a check on that evening. Again you are talking about how the McCann's should behave if they think someone sinister is happening, why would they tell Matthew how the door was left? Kate said it was all quiet, not one of the children was crying, so she went to shut the door and it slammed shut.
thats why i dont think its of any importance what the barrister did or didnt say. Leaving a child in a locked hotel room is contrary to the guidelines
Contrary to what guidelines?
Parents leaving children in locked hotel rooms is completely different to what was going on at 5A. And afaik when parents leave children in locked hotel rooms it is usually whilst they're on site usually dining in the hotel restaurant. Effectively they are in the same building as the left children.
We have no idea who the barrister was and whether or not he was basing it on UK law or Portuguese? We have no relevant case law to know how the law would interpret such an event.
KM doesn't need to lie for info to be incorrect since much of what she offers up is based on her perception.
the giudelines you posted
I would suggest most parents would be looking for the following level of security to feel comfortable about leaving small children:
Here at New Park Manor you may take advantage of our video baby monitors to allow you to enjoy some time together alone to relax and unwind while having the peace of mind that your little ones are safe and sound.
Pop down to reception and we will provide you with the video monitor, you simply plug this into your room before you settle your little one down and then we provide you with a handset that you keep with you so that it allows you to keep an eye on your little one.
A Ł150 deposit will be applied to your bill, which will be refunded on return of the monitor and handset. Please note that handsets must be kept with parents at all times and unfortunately cannot be monitored by our team.
https://www.newparkmanorhotel.co.uk/family-friendly-hotel
Is this the norm for hotels nowadays?
Just to add I wouldn't use the facility.
No idea but I don't think your typical hotel can be compared with 5A.
Why?
You leave your children in a locked bedroom, take the stairs or lift one, two or three or even more levels down.
You can't see the children, strangers will be walking by their room, possibly aware that there are children there asleep, alone many times before?
The child could wake and there would be the same possible dangers which have been mentioned .
Just as unacceptable.
I doubt many guests leave their doors unlocked. In fact fire regs would make it impossible to do so. Most hotels have internal and external cctv. If the room is above ground level a would be intruder would need to force entry by scaling an external wall or bashing a door in on the corridor.
“Parents leaving children in locked hotel rooms is completely different to what was going on at 5A. And afaik when parents leave children in locked hotel rooms it is usually whilst they're on site usually dining in the hotel restaurant. Effectively they are in the same building as the left children”.
I would be much more at ease to have my children sleeping in a space which is on the same level where dinner was had. In my opinion, with a hotel setup and the restaurant most probably on the inside of a ground or first floor level and children at e.g. 10th level, I would most definitely not leave them alone in a hotel room.
Still against NSPCC guidelines
I doubt many guests leave their doors unlocked. In fact fire regs would make it impossible to do so. Most hotels have internal and external cctv. If the room is above ground level a would be intruder would need to force entry by scaling an external wall or bashing a door in on the corridor.
Not necessarily. It depends on the ages of children and set-up at hotel.
“Eat dinner with your children”.
Within the context of a weeklong vacation abroad, to me it is reasonable and acceptable that all family members have their share of what the vacation has to offer. How is it wrong if you have assessed and were convinced your children are asleep and within an environment that you were regarding as no threat to their well-being, putting them to bed and allowing yourself to interact with your peers? Also, with the conviction that other guests were having the same arrangement with their children?
Did KM accompany GM when he carried out his circa 9 pm check? Was she present when MM disappeared? Was she with JT when she observed 'Tannerman'? Did KM witness GM conversing with JW at circa 9 pm? Was KM out and about during the early searches? I could go on and on. Her experiences in in PDL pre and post MM's disappearance are based on her version of events as she chooses to recite them based on many different factors including her perceptions.What do you expect her to base her book on? Whose version of events should she have written about? You do know she was there when it was all going off don’t you? You seem to be criticising her for not being omnipresent now. (&^&
No need to carry out any such experiment when the McCanns clearly contradict each other:You choose to see contradictions without making any allowances for other circumstances- light conditions outside and inside the apartment for example. Pardon the pun, but you simply don’t allow for any light and shade in the narrative, it’s all got to be black or white as far as you’re concerned. A room can be described as very dark and yet it’s still possible to see things within it when you open a door and look in, or if some light is coming through from outside. There is dark and then there is pitch black where you can’t see your hand on front of your face. if you don’t accept this then it’s pointless continuing the discussion.
Daytime - KM describes room as "very dark" - shutter down, window closed, curtains drawn
8.30 pm - GM "totally dark" - shutter down, window closed, curtains drawn
9.00 pm - GM thinks to himself how beautiful MM looked - shutter down, window closed, curtains drawn
10. 00 pm - KM unable to determine whether MM in bed or not as room so dark - shutter raised, window open, curtains whooshing
“They were dumping the kids in the creche all day so they'd had plenty of me time IMO“.
Obviously, you choose your destination according to what is on offer. How do you validate your assumption of “dumping the kids”? Are you assuming the McCann children were going to kids club because they were forced to go? Or, that they didn’t enjoy the experience. As far as I know, Madeleine’s last conversation with her Mom was her saying, “I had the best day ever”.
“They were dumping the kids in the creche all day so they'd had plenty of me time IMO“.
Obviously, you choose your destination according to what is on offer. How do you validate your assumption of “dumping the kids”? Are you assuming the McCann children were going to kids club because they were forced to go? Or, that they didn’t enjoy the experience. As far as I know, Madeleine’s last conversation with her Mom was her saying, “I had the best day ever”.
Lace we've pored all over this and the evidence from GM and KM is highly contradictory.You have made up a completely alternative version of events, presented them as factsand you weren’t even there - what a baldy (sic) cheek!
The only person who knows what he did or didn't do when he checked at circa 9 pm is GM. The fact he said this that or the other doesn't make it factually correct.
He certainly spoke to Jes, but Jes never confirmed what the time was.How do you know he certainly talked to Jes?
At last, some actual common sense!
You must remember that they didn't know that Madeleine would be abducted on the evening of the 3rd of May. You are talking as if they knew an abductor was on the prowl. So Gerry found the door open further that they had left it, he wondered if Madeleine had gone to the toilet, he wasn't thinking 'I wonder if an abductor has been in the bedroom'. He left and probably thought no more about it. It was the first time Gerry had gone into the bedroom on his check, it was the first time he did a check on that evening. Again you are talking about how the McCann's should behave if they think someone sinister is happening, why would they tell Matthew how the door was left? Kate said it was all quiet, not one of the children was crying, so she went to shut the door and it slammed shut.
Did Kate use the word ‘dump’?”Dump” is a word McCann bashers like to use when describing the kids being taken to kids club, as if they were being abandoned like a sack of kittens on the side of the road. Highly emotive and designed to elicit a reaction.
GM was obviously concerned enough about claims of parental neglect given a barrister flew out on 11th May who reassured the McCanns that their evening childcare arrangements fell 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'. And yet this barrister might well have been quite happy to prosecute lesser mortals had their young charges disappeared in the same circumstances. ?8)@)-)I don't know how your reading of the situations you pontificate about in your posts can be so far off the mark.
Hi VS, my daughter used to love the kids club and all the activities. She made friends from Canada, England and South Africa. My son on the other hand, selected which activities he wanted to participate in. The kids club personnel would call us, indicating that he would rather join us, upon one of us fetching him.We never “dumped” our kids at kids club while away on holiday but I used to “dump” them at every locally run summer school available during the school holidays. If I hadn’t I might have ended up dying of boredom or commiting infanticide, but they always enjoyed themselves nonetheless.
What body language?
Gerry was late getting back to the Tapas because he stopped to chat to Jez, not because he was watching football.
Here's an idea from left field.
Eat dinner with your children.
Crazy, I know.
“They were dumping the kids in the creche all day so they'd had plenty of me time IMO“.
Obviously, you choose your destination according to what is on offer. How do you validate your assumption of “dumping the kids”? Are you assuming the McCann children were going to kids club because they were forced to go? Or, that they didn’t enjoy the experience. As far as I know, Madeleine’s last conversation with her Mom was her saying, “I had the best day ever”.
He wasn't watching football so he was doing something else.How do you know what he was doing? Where is your IMO, or are you exempt from the forum rules?
The McCann's wanted to keep their children in the same routine as home.
At home Madeleine got to stay up half an hour later than the twins.How do you know?
At home Madeleine got to stay up half an hour later than the twins.
I don't know how your reading of the situations you pontificate about in your posts can be so far off the mark.
Having heard Matt's absolute hysteria when being interviewed "shouting and crying" having had it put to him that he had handed Madeleine through the window to an accomplice ( see, the PJ had absolutely no doubt that Madeleine had been abducted ~ they just got it entirely wrong about by whom).
The time therefore was way past being worried about the claims of parental neglect you have speculated about ... it was evident to those concerned that the PJ were following an entirely different path and were going about it as Kate says in her book "like something out of Life on Mars".
You really think the McCanns (who were not 'lawyered' up at that stage) should have knocked back the offer of legal assistance when it was offered?
Why would spending LONGER in the apartment be considered something to be ashamed of? Surely all the while Gerry was “watching the footie” Madeleine was safe from harm?
Pontificate is that like Pontiff and Kate? 8)-)))
How do you know MM hadn't disappeared by the time GM checked at circa 9 pm? We only have his word he physically observed her at circa 9 pm which is at odds with testimony from others.Are you suggesting Gerry already knew Madeleine had disappeared before Kate raised the alarm?? Because if he didn’t already know then why would he feel ashamed he spent longer in the apartment? What do others know about what Gerry did or didn’t do in the apartment? How would they know?
Are you suggesting Gerry already knew Madeleine had disappeared before Kate raised the alarm?? Because if he didn’t already know then why would he feel ashamed he spent longer in the apartment? What do others know about what Gerry did or didn’t do in the apartment? How would they know?
I'm suggesting MM may have already disappeared by the time he checked at 9pm. We have no idea what exactly his 9 pm check entailed. Did he simply listen as he had on all previous occasions or did this check involve physically observing MM? If the former he may simply have put his head round the patio doors and thought all quiet = ok. Or he may have grabbed the remote longing to check on the UEFA semifinal scores and simultaneously thought all was quiet on the children front and simply left without having any idea about the children, shutter, window. I'm certainly not prepared to take what he says at face value as so many things do not add up.Either way, why should he have to feel ashamed for spending longer in the apartment than usual as has been suggested earlier by you (I think)?
Either way, why should he have to feel ashamed for spending longer in the apartment than usual as has been suggested earlier by you (I think)?
Nothing to do with the length of time he spent in the apt but we know from various individuals he checked at circa 9 pm. At 10 pm KM found MM missing. At 9.30 pm MO checked but had no idea if MM was present or not. If GM was unable to say whether or not MM was present at circa 9 pm he might feel somewhat ashamed that not only did he leave his 3 small children in an unlocked apt whilst he was wining and dining but upon 'checking' he had no idea whether or not she was present.And so you think Gerry is sufficiently sociopathic to put his own self preservation first, and the search for his daughter and his daughter’s abductor second do you? You think he is so callous and cynical that he would invent a heart rending account of his last sighting of his daughter to fool not only the police but slso his wife, his other children and the rest of his family? Yet you also credit him with the capacity to feel shame? IMO these are not compatible traits. I think your narrative is coloured by your personal dislike of the man.
That's good parenting, isn't it.
Letting her feel that wee bit special as the bigger sister.
I agree Anthro, dumping the kids is ridiculous, they wouldn't have gone unless they wanted to go. Children love the company of other children, I have lost count how many times other children have come up to mine on the beach for instance to play. Madeleine was looking forward to showing Kate and Gerry her dance on the Friday, something she didn't get to do 8(8-))
And so you think Gerry is sufficiently sociopathic to put his own self preservation first, and the search for his daughter and his daughter’s abductor second do you? You think he is so callous and cynical that he would invent a heart rending account of his last sighting of his daughter to fool not only the police but slso his wife, his other children and the rest of his family? Yet you also credit him with the capacity to feel shame? IMO these are not compatible traits. I think your narrative is coloured by your personal dislike of the man.
I would say in order of reliability those tasked with looking on a professional basis eg GNR officers and then the OC employees who had some sort of 'missing child' procedure to draw upon and then volunteer searchers including members of T9.
Afaik KM did not search at night as GM asked her to stay at 5A in case MM was found.
Its all hypothetical Davel. If a case went to court it would fall and rise on its individual merits.
Parents A dine out in hotel restaurant where children B are tucked up in locked room and parents can observe using a video monitor like those offered at New Park Manor:
https://www.newparkmanorhotel.co.uk/family-friendly-hotel
Parent B dine out at a restaurant a 2 - 3 minute walk away from unlocked holiday apartment where children C are tucked up but the parents have no idea what's going on and as it so happens a 3 yoa child disappears.
It was taken away on holiday.Because they were sharing a bedroom, not because the parents were deliberately punishing Madeleine.
It made Gerry seem more caring than if he hadn't looked, especially with the 'moving door'.Obviously you think the man cared more about his image than about the search for his daughter because you obviously believe he hid her body but I wasn’t asking you, I was asking Holly, who believes Madeleine was abducted.
I find Kate's personal account of the criticism she and Gerry were subject to harrowing. She describes it as being kicked when they were down; it then turned what Kate describes as nasty ... I think it was nothing short of sick.Yep, and there’s a tiny handful of them on this forum still honing their McCann bashing skills. The Die Hards!
Kate describes disciplining herself to ignore these vile communications which had almost pushed them over the edge at the lowest ebb of their lives and began instead to develop pity for the perpetrators.
I doubt I could have been as charitable as she when it came to these poor lost souls ... particularly as a dedicated rump have been at it for twelve years without a break. I think that type of malevolent obsession must say far more about them than those with whom they are sadly obsessed.
Yep, and there’s a tiny handful of them on this forum still honing their McCann bashing skills. The Die Hards!
I find Kate's personal account of the criticism she and Gerry were subject to harrowing. She describes it as being kicked when they were down; it then turned what Kate describes as nasty ... I think it was nothing short of sick.
Kate describes disciplining herself to ignore these vile communications which had almost pushed them over the edge at the lowest ebb of their lives and began instead to develop pity for the perpetrators.
I doubt I could have been as charitable as she when it came to these poor lost souls ... particularly as a dedicated rump have been at it for twelve years without a break. I think that type of malevolent obsession must say far more about them than those with whom they are sadly obsessed.
It made Gerry seem more caring than if he hadn't looked, especially with the 'moving door'.
Really? And who are they then?You want me to name the McCann Bashers? I don’t think that’s allowed. And yes, I have been following this case online for 12 years. I am certainly not supporter-bashing, that’s your job. 8)--))
I take it from this that you have been on the case for 12 years, identifying such miscreants?
Otherwise it is simply another case of negative supporter-bashing.
The McCanns can have no redeeming features in the eyes of the avowed sceptic, it would never do to admit that there was anything remotely half decent about either of them, because then their theories and beliefs would be weakened.
Is there any redeeming feature of Madeleine's father's personality and behaviour or do you really believe he is as uncaring and unpleasant as your posts seem to suggest?
I find Kate's personal account of the criticism she and Gerry were subject to harrowing. She describes it as being kicked when they were down; it then turned what Kate describes as nasty ... I think it was nothing short of sick.Don't sit on the fence, tell us what you think. And I wonder who this diatribe is aimed at?
Kate describes disciplining herself to ignore these vile communications which had almost pushed them over the edge at the lowest ebb of their lives and began instead to develop pity for the perpetrators.
I doubt I could have been as charitable as she when it came to these poor lost souls ... particularly as a dedicated rump have been at it for twelve years without a break. I think that type of malevolent obsession must say far more about them than those with whom they are sadly obsessed.
Of course they were criticised, as Kate accepted; they were at fault.
"We came in for some criticism, of course, for leaving the children in the apartment while we had dinner" [madeleine]
In my opinion some genuine contrition might have helped, rather than the excuses they made for their behaviour. Excuses which are still repeated to this day by some.
It was obvious to others that Kate McCann never really accepted that she did wrong;
"That night runs over and over in my mind and I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559517/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-recalls-last-chat.html
Of course they were criticised, as Kate accepted; they were at fault.I still don’t understand why members of the public like you feel you are owed a public apology by Kate and Gerry. Perhaps you could explain?
"We came in for some criticism, of course, for leaving the children in the apartment while we had dinner" [madeleine]
In my opinion some genuine contrition might have helped, rather than the excuses they made for their behaviour. Excuses which are still repeated to this day by some.
It was obvious to others that Kate McCann never really accepted that she did wrong;
"That night runs over and over in my mind and I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559517/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-recalls-last-chat.html
The vuctuns of a crime should never have to apologise to the public for being the victims if a crime.... And it's only a few in the net who pathologically dislike them that want them to.It is a few. The overwhelming majority of everyone don't give a shit. Every 'newsworthy' story, positive or negative, attracts a few unhinged blerts. This is no different and I don't think anyone here has a pathological hatred or sycophantic admiration - we all occupy the middle ground here, with a leaning either way.
Of course they were criticised, as Kate accepted; they were at fault.
"We came in for some criticism, of course, for leaving the children in the apartment while we had dinner" [madeleine]
In my opinion some genuine contrition might have helped, rather than the excuses they made for their behaviour. Excuses which are still repeated to this day by some.
It was obvious to others that Kate McCann never really accepted that she did wrong;
"That night runs over and over in my mind and I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559517/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-recalls-last-chat.html
It is a few. The overwhelming majority of everyone don't give a shit. Every 'newsworthy' story, positive or negative, attracts a few unhinged blerts. This is no different and I don't think anyone here has a pathological hatred or sycophantic admiration - we all occupy the middle ground here, with a leaning either way.Oh come on, everyone knows Davel and I WORSHIP the McCanns.
I still don’t understand why members of the public like you feel you are owed a public apology by Kate and Gerry. Perhaps you could explain?I can't reply for G-Unit, although I don't think she wants an apology, but in terms of 'members of the public', the explanation is simple - it's simple people, with simple emotions, venting in simplistic terms, looking for a simple action, as if some contrition would assuage their sanctimony. Most of the irrational who may want that, and that's a very small subset of society, don't even know that's actually what they want - it's the old vicarious outrage again.
Oh come on, everyone knows Davel and I WORSHIP the McCanns.I meant except you; goes without saying.
It is a few. The overwhelming majority of everyone don't give a shit. Every 'newsworthy' story, positive or negative, attracts a few unhinged blerts. This is no different and I don't think anyone here has a pathological hatred or sycophantic admiration - we all occupy the middle ground here, with a leaning either way.
I can't reply for G-Unit, although I don't think she wants an apology, but in terms of 'members of the public', the explanation is simple - it's simple people, with simple emotions, venting in simplistic terms, looking for a simple action, as if some contrition would assuage their sanctimony. Most of the irrational who may want that, and that's a very small subset of society, don't even know that's actually what they want - it's the old vicarious outrage again.Well you’ve certainly hit the nail on the head there IMO.
If Kate or Gerry actually issued some public apology, and I don't think they should by the way, those who wanted it would probably just be further outraged in a Pythonesque way 'you see! They apologised! I told you, they were wrong! Look at them! Damn you to hell!'.
I still don’t understand why members of the public like you feel you are owed a public apology by Kate and Gerry. Perhaps you could explain?
I have no right or desire for an apology, nothing they did or said offended me. I do have the right to an opinion, however and my opinion is that they refused to acknowledge just how wrong their treatment of their children was.
I have no right or desire for an apology, nothing they did or said offended me. I do have the right to an opinion, however and my opinion is that they refused to acknowledge just how wrong their treatment of their children was.How do you know they have refused to do this? Why does the acknowledgement need to be made public? To satisfy whom and why?
I have no right or desire for an apology, nothing they did or said offended me. I do have the right to an opinion, however and my opinion is that they refused to acknowledge just how wrong their treatment of their children was.
And so you think Gerry is sufficiently sociopathic to put his own self preservation first, and the search for his daughter and his daughter’s abductor second do you? You think he is so callous and cynical that he would invent a heart rending account of his last sighting of his daughter to fool not only the police but slso his wife, his other children and the rest of his family? Yet you also credit him with the capacity to feel shame? IMO these are not compatible traits. I think your narrative is coloured by your personal dislike of the man.
If Gerry is Smithman then yes and his wife knows. Police wouldn't think they were covering up an accident if they are involved. Amaral was nice.I'm not interested in your views, i was asking Holly who does NOT believe Gerry was Smithman. Amaral was not nice IMO so that is your opinion, not a fact.
How do you know they have refused to do this? Why does the acknowledgement need to be made public? To satisfy whom and why?
I know by reading and listening to what they have said. They voluntarily went public, no-one forced them give interviews, partake in photo-shoots or write a book.So acknowledging their “treatment of their children” to their nearest and dearest, in private, is not enough for you. You want a public announcement. Like I asked before - why do you want it? How will it satisfy your needs?
Some people accepted their story without question, others didn't. The McCanns and some of those who accepted their story attacked without mercy those who didn't believe the story, and they are still doing it.
Questioning the McCann's story isn't evidence of madness, badness, sadness, jealousy or sectarianism. The anamolies, evasions and the inexplicable pronouncements are all real and the evidence of them is real too.
In my opinion blackening the characters and questioning the motives of those who haven't accepted the story doesn't answer the questions, it just verifies that those doing it are unable to provide believable answers.
I know by reading and listening to what they have said. They voluntarily went public, no-one forced them give interviews, partake in photo-shoots or write a book.
Some people accepted their story without question, others didn't. The McCanns and some of those who accepted their story attacked without mercy those who didn't believe the story, and they are still doing it.
Questioning the McCann's story isn't evidence of madness, badness, sadness, jealousy or sectarianism. The anamolies, evasions and the inexplicable pronouncements are all real and the evidence of them is real too.
In my opinion blackening the characters and questioning the motives of those who haven't accepted the story doesn't answer the questions, it just verifies that those doing it are unable to provide believable answers.
Also, how about some McCann bashers providing some “verifiable answers” for a change? Like how, when where and why they hid their child’s body for a start!!
Nearest dumpster is the obvious answer.
Also, how about some McCann bashers providing some “verifiable answers” for a change? Like how, when where and why they hid their child’s body for a start!!
Nearest dumpster is the obvious answer.That's verifiable is it? OK then, verify it.
Why not?
Why ?
Why not?
Nearest dumpster is the obvious answer.
I see no need.I'm not really interested in your needs or otherwise.
I'm not really interested in your needs or otherwise.
That's verifiable is it? OK then, verify it.
You clearly are, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question .Wrong, I asked a rhetorical question to which I knew I wouldn't receive anything approaching a meaningful answer and I was correct.
If you ask a stupid question, do you really expect the case solution on a platter? *&^^&It wasn't a stupid question. We were being berated by G-Unit for failing to provide believable, verifiable answers, I was simply asking the same of sceptics, or do you prefer to operate to double standards?
So acknowledging their “treatment of their children” to their nearest and dearest, in private, is not enough for you. You want a public announcement. Like I asked before - why do you want it? How will it satisfy your needs?
PS stop playing the victim card. You are not a victim.
I don't know what the McCanns said to their nearest and dearest and I'd love to know why you think you do.You lamented the lack of genuine contrition. Unless you know for a fact that Kate has never expressed this then you are in no position to criticise. I made no claim either way, unlike yourself. By constantly harping on about supposedly being attacked for your views you ARE playing the victim card IMO.
Please don't tell me what I want, because you don't know that either.
I'm not a victim and I'm not playing 'the victim card'. I leave that to those who feel the need to use it to garner sympathy.
Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? Isn't that the $64,000 question which they always avoid like the plague because they cannot make any answer fit the known facts? I think it's a very intelligent question and I will keep on asking it in the vain hope of getting an intelligent answer - 12 years on I'm still waiting...
How?you’ll have to do better than that Spammy, but 2/10 for giving it a go.
By putting it in a bin.
Why?
Because she was dead.
When?
May 3rd 2007.
Where do I collect my $64k?
How?Unbelievably four other people on this forum actually liked this facile post of Spam’s. I guess they enjoy a good WUM as long as it’s directed at the McCanns and not themselves.
“By putting it in a bin.
Why?
Because she was dead.
When?
May 3rd 2007.
Where do I collect my $64k?“
Where I’m from, this would be regarded as hate speech and the Human Rights Commission will file a complaint.
How?Really? Shut the front door! Ding Ding Ding Ding - Sanctimony Level 46 Achieved!
“By putting it in a bin.
Why?
Because she was dead.
When?
May 3rd 2007.
Where do I collect my $64k?“
Where I’m from, this would be regarded as hate speech and the Human Rights Commission will file a complaint.
So acknowledging their “treatment of their children” to their nearest and dearest, in private, is not enough for you. You want a public announcement. Like I asked before - why do you want it? How will it satisfy your needs?
PS stop playing the victim card. You are not a victim.
Why not?
Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? Isn't that the $64,000 question which they always avoid like the plague because they cannot make any answer fit the known facts? I think it's a very intelligent question and I will keep on asking it in the vain hope of getting an intelligent answer - 12 years on I'm still waiting...Its a Ł12 million question that stumps SY.
They can't verify any of it VS. They haven't got any facts or reasonings to verify it ... so they skip that bit.Some might suggest an outlandish Ashkenazic Bloodline theory is sad too. Innit?
Sad innit ?
Its a Ł12 million question that stumps SY.The Met already answered those questions, way before spending Ł12m.
And so you think Gerry is sufficiently sociopathic to put his own self preservation first, and the search for his daughter and his daughter’s abductor second do you? You think he is so callous and cynical that he would invent a heart rending account of his last sighting of his daughter to fool not only the police but slso his wife, his other children and the rest of his family? Yet you also credit him with the capacity to feel shame? IMO these are not compatible traits. I think your narrative is coloured by your personal dislike of the man.
Its a Ł12 million question that stumps SY.
SY are easily stumped because they are a homogeneous group of people and all the research shows hetrogenous groups perform better in solving problems.
SY are looking for a male(s) with criminal backgrounds/social deviants who left behind an electronic footprint by way of telecommunications. What if the abductor is female who might have had a male accomplice both of which are middle class without a history of criminality/social deviance neither of whom left behind an electronic footprint as they have each other to share with.
You typical MET officer is a white British male who signs up as a cadet all of whom receive the same training meaning SY is primarily made up of a bunch of guys who all look and think alike which might be fine for busting the run of the mill crime but when you get unusual cases like the murder of Jill Dando and the disappearance of MM it requires a different type of skill set which is lacking imo.
I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative.
MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue. I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place. He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby. He shortly realised this was not the case. KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family. It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc. And more importantly he had two other children. RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect. MO had no idea whether MM was present or not. It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm.
For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm. If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together. Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.
I find your entire post total rubbish. Imo... SY will simply follow the evidence
It doesn't surprise me Davel that you find my entire post total rubbish since you write most of my posts off as 'rubbish'. As I've said numerous times firstly the fact you find something 'rubbish' doesn't make it so. Secondly, you so so overuse the word 'rubbish' I would imagine most here are desensitised by it. Thirdly, you might help your arguments if you can show why/how they are 'rubbish' rather than simply labelling what you're arguing against 'rubbish'.The evidence would show that the best people to solve problems are those trained to solve them... A mathematical problem is best solved by a mathematician. Almost your entire post is your opinion based on little or no evidence.. Howbis it possible to argue against that.
It doesn't surprise me Davel that you find my entire post total rubbish since you write most of my posts off as 'rubbish'. As I've said numerous times firstly the fact you find something 'rubbish' doesn't make it so. Secondly, you so so overuse the word 'rubbish' I would imagine most here are desensitised by it. Thirdly, you might help your arguments if you can show why/how they are 'rubbish' rather than simply labelling what you're arguing against 'rubbish'.
The evidence would show that the best people to solve problems are those trained to solve them... A mathematical problem is best solved by a mathematician. Almost your entire post is your opinion based on little or no evidence.. Howbis it possible to argue against that.
You seem to think the public would be better at solving these cased than the professionals... You have provided no evidence to support that
You said:
I find your entire post total rubbish. Imo... SY will simply follow the evidence
What 'evidence' are SY following? As far as I know there's no evidence? No forensics? No signs of forced entry? No witnesses? No CCTV? No electronic footprints? No suspects? No psychological profile? No one even knows what the motive was?
Where have I said that the public would be better at solving these cases than the professionals?
A mathematician knows what he/she is dealing with. In this case the 'professionals' have no idea what they're dealing with hence they are going wide and far: burglary gone wrong to a sexual predator.
SY are easily stumped because they are a homogeneous group of people and all the research shows hetrogenous groups perform better in solving problems.
SY are looking for a male(s) with criminal backgrounds/social deviants who left behind an electronic footprint by way of telecommunications. What if the abductor is female who might have had a male accomplice both of which are middle class without a history of criminality/social deviance neither of whom left behind an electronic footprint as they have each other to share with.
You typical MET officer is a white British male who signs up as a cadet all of whom receive the same training meaning SY is primarily made up of a bunch of guys who all look and think alike which might be fine for busting the run of the mill crime but when you get unusual cases like the murder of Jill Dando and the disappearance of MM it requires a different type of skill set which is lacking imo.
One of the few Met officers who worked very closely with the original Portuguese investigation team, DS Defrietas, is Portuguese by birth. He had previously worked on the Stephanie Slater/Julie Dart cases which culminated in the conviction of Michael Sams. The crimes were carefully planned by a sole perpetrator. I wonder how much of the officer's knowledge & experience was ignored by PJ?
One of the few Met officers who worked very closely with the original Portuguese investigation team, DS Defrietas, is Portuguese by birth. He had previously worked on the Stephanie Slater/Julie Dart cases which culminated in the conviction of Michael Sams. The crimes were carefully planned by a sole perpetrator. I wonder how much of the officer's knowledge & experience was ignored by PJ?
We might have found out, had the UK authorities not prevented him from giving evidence in the libel trial as Amaral's lawyers requested.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/maddie-case-british-cop-invokes-state.html
The libel trial was not a criminal trial. Defreitas was bound by the OSA. It was unethical of Amaral or his lawyer to request his testimony imo.
None of that explains why he was prevented from giving evidence. What is clear, however, is that Amaral believed his evidence would be favourable to him, not to his accusers.
wht amaral believed is not here nor their. From recollection not every witness amaral called was favourable to him.
It seems De Freitas was ruled by UK regulations...whats wrong with that
To return to the post which led to the debate it's unlikely that de Freitas was at odds with the PJ, as Amaral wouldn't have called him as a witness if they had disagreed.
In my opinion there are two individuals who have profited from Madeleine's disappearance very much for their own ends.
The first is the person who took it upon themselves to abduct Madeleine.
The second is Goncalo Amaral whose arrogance has probably inflicted as much pain as is humanly possible on another human being and has revelled in it.
Kate asks ... "Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas?" madeleine: Kate McCann
One can only wonder, why indeed.
I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative.
MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue. I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place. He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby. He shortly realised this was not the case. KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family. It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc. And more importantly he had two other children. RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect. MO had no idea whether MM was present or not. It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm.
For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm. If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together. Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.
I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative.Yes he would have to be a sociopath to put his own future above thst of his missing daughter, IMO. You can choose to believe what you want however, it does not make it true however (as you are so fond of saying).
MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue. I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place. He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby. He shortly realised this was not the case. KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family. It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc. And more importantly he had two other children. RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect. MO had no idea whether MM was present or not. It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm.
For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm. If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together. Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.
I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative.
MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue. I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place. He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby. He shortly realised this was not the case. KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family. It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc. And more importantly he had two other children. RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect. MO had no idea whether MM was present or not. It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm.
For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm. If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together. Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.
VS:"Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? "Anyone else spot the massive contradiction here? Independent thinkers ask questions don’t they? So by asking the question I demonstrate I am an independent thinker so how can I simultaneously be an independent thinker basher? Hmmm....what a conundrum....
-firstly it is none of your business is it?
-you keep saying you don't care...
- to ask questions is independent thinker bashing, and we know how you dislike the bashing of humans
We might have found out, had the UK authorities not prevented him from giving evidence in the libel trial as Amaral's lawyers requested.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/maddie-case-british-cop-invokes-state.html
I found it very strange that Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant Jose De Freitas didn't do his duty and appear as a witness. In my opinion this was unacceptable behaviour to hide behind his status as a serving English police officer. A police officer can be summoned to testify in any court case, they are not above the law regardless of jurisdiction.
The difficulty for the parents is that what occurred after 5.30pm on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared cannot be independently verified. 5.30pm being the last time we are aware of that the child was seen in public. Anything could have occurred between 5.30 and 10pm.
Indeed John. This is something else which would show up during a reconstruction. Whos version of 'Kate with the children are we going to have presented'. surely not all three, that would be a comedy.. So according to your philosophy of life it’s ok to ask questions of the McCanns but not ok to ask questions of fellow forum members if it’s about their beliefs, that seems to be about the gist of it. So, anything and everything McCann related is OUR BUSINESS but what other forum members think, the guys we are debating with, no they are not our business and must not be challenged. Well tuff titicacas, that’s not my philosophy, and I shall continue to ask sceptics awkward questions until I’m forbidden by the thought police from doing so.
Gerry asks David P to go and check on Kate with the kids. Why can she not cope on her own with the kids?
He goes to the apartment and goes inside for (?) mins. he can't reacall why he was there in his rog- nor can he recall what Kate was wearing but he does know for sure that all the children were there all like little angels and happy.
Well nice innit.
Kate goes to see David P at the door he doesn't enter and chats for a few (?) seconds- she is wearing only a towel- having just had a shower.Did Kate leave three children unattended while having a shower? could an accident have occured?
Since the timeline is not worth maddies little book pages- they wrote it on I would say there was NO physical checks that eve untill Kate raises the alarm...
Re stupid question: The question was asked about the McCanns specifically. the reply was to same.
According some :- asking questions of the McCanns is McCann bashing- innit. asking independent thinkers, who do not believe the McCanns , questions is independent thinkers bashing
Ohh smell the irony.
. So according to your philosophy of life it’s ok to ask questions of the McCanns but not ok to ask questions of fellow forum members if it’s about their beliefs, that seems to be about the gist of it. So, anything and everything McCann related is OUR BUSINESS but what other forum members think, the guys we are debating with, no they are not our business and must not be challenged. Well tuff titicacas, that’s not my philosophy, and I shall continue to ask sceptics awkward questions until I’m forbidden by the thought police from doing so.
VS:"Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? "
-firstly it is none of your business is it?
-you keep saying you don't care...
- to ask questions is independent thinker bashing, and we know how you dislike the bashing of humans
Brietta :- Madeliene was abducted? how did that happen -via a window perchance?
There is only omne victim in this story and that is Madeleine- the parents just feel embarrassed and awkward about being caught leaving their children alone IMO.
Kate asks ... "Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas?" madeleine: Kate McCann
The same reason Kate, you had your platform to peddle your whooshing curtain story- sad innit.
Based on the law surrounding the OSA, what sort of role would Defreitas have played as a witness for Amaral? JDF worked for the UK police, not for PJ. Information he handled was from the UK, not Portuguese witnesses. Kate's book does not indicate a great deal of personal contact with JDF. AFAIK he was not involved in the formulation of the Amaral/Almeida hypothesis.
There could also have been a conflict of interest had the CPS wanted, at a later stage, to prosecute a UK citizen for a crimes against Madeleine under UK jurisdiction. All IMO.
Why should it be? Members opinions have no bearing on the events of 3rd May 2007Sorry, I was under the impression that we were here to discuss the case, not just to bash the McCanns incessantly.
Amaral's lawyers clearly thought that de Freitas would have been able to support Amaral's case. We don't know how, but we know that the UK authorities wouldn't allow him to give evidence.
IMO there was nothing Defreitas could have said in his role as a serving UK police officer, without breaking the OSA, which would have supported Amaral's right to libel the McCanns.
All rather hypothetical as Amaral won without his input.
Amaral didn't win in the court which directly heard the witnesses.
Amaral didn't win in the court which directly heard the witnesses.Did Amaral's theory and subsequent book stop you from searching for little Maddie? I'll answer for you; it was rhetorical - no. I don't get how he's the demon here. 'Ooh, Amaral won in the courts, so he's stopping us all looking for Maddie and siphoning money out of the fund as a result'. How so? Who brought the action against whom? If he's such a balloon, then let his story wither on the vine. By taking legal action, the irony is that his book received free publicity - WAY TO GO GUYS, YOU DID IT! WOO! THAT'LL LEARN YA, GONZO!
He won in the end, which is all that counts.
Why?
Did Amaral's theory and subsequent book stop you from searching for little Maddie? I'll answer for you; it was rhetorical - no. I don't get how he's the demon here. 'Ooh, Amaral won in the courts, so he's stopping us all looking for Maddie and siphoning money out of the fund as a result'. How so? Who brought the action against whom? If he's such a balloon, then let his story wither on the vine. By taking legal action, the irony is that his book received free publicity - WAY TO GO GUYS, YOU DID IT! WOO! THAT'LL LEARN YA, GONZO!
Because it brings the prolonged action in the Portuguese courts to an end.
Who had the last laugh
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/macanos_expresso4.jpg)
Q – Aren’t you curious to know what the book says?
Kate – What for? It must be nothing but a load of rubbish. It is so secondary… It certainly won’t help to find our daughter. My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that.
Gerry called her Maddie on his friends reunited page. Kate the joker!
I thought it important elsewhere
Possibly a difference in opinion in what is important.
In a legal case, winning is what counts.Guess Amaral has won.
How many people in Portugal or posters on this forum/other social media platforms would have considered still looking for Madeleine after the publication of Amaral's book & watching the documentary? Very often documentaries are the most influential in shaping opinions of the uninitiated.
In a legal case, winning is what counts.
I wonder if SY are looking for Madeleine,or looking to what happened to her,world of difference,
His perceived legal victory will never mitigate everything else he lost along the way. IMO.
I wonder if SY are looking for Madeleine,or looking to what happened to her,world of difference,
There is nothing perceived about it, though you may be correct regarding the second part of your sentence.
You never fail to disappoint.
It is a perceived victory until the ECHR have their say. The only irremovable gain right now is monetary.
To find Madeleine SY needed to find out who removed her from the apartment & try to follow the trail. Rather like in drug trafficking cases, police leave the small fish alone whilst in pursuit of those higher up the metaphorical food chain.
I don't think they have ever looked for her - unless you count their digging of holes & dog deployment looking.
Even then its never been clear what they were looking for.
IMO
Nor do the McCanns.
The ECHR verdict, if ever delivered, has nothing to do with Amaral.
As you should know, it is a case taken out against the State of Portugal.
The ECHR verdict indirectly has everything to do with Amaral & the Portuguese justice system. Portugal has already lost 2 cases this year in ECHR involving their application of freedom of speech laws relating to defamation of judges. Those in positions of influence, as Amaral was, should not be given the green light to act with impunity IMO.
Amaral's lawyers clearly thought that de Freitas would have been able to support Amaral's case. We don't know how, but we know that the UK authorities wouldn't allow him to give evidence.
IMO there was nothing Defreitas could have said in his role as a serving UK police officer, without breaking the OSA, which would have supported Amaral's right to libel the McCanns.
IMO there was nothing Defreitas could have said in his role as a serving UK police officer, without breaking the OSA, which would have supported Amaral's right to libel the McCanns.
One wonders why? *%87
Interesting guidelines from West Yorkshire Police in respect of officers testifying in civil cases:
"In cases where there are, or likely to be, criminal proceedings a request for interview should be refused until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings."
Was Leicestershire Constabulary as was then known considering such proceedings?
If Amaral had libelled the McCanns they would have won their case.
The first part is the most difficult with ne'er a suspect to be seen.
I'll refer you to jassi's post,what were they looking for and how did it advance the case,some 12 months later the team was drastically cut to just four.
How many people in Portugal or posters on this forum/other social media platforms would have considered still looking for Madeleine after the publication of Amaral's book & watching the documentary? Very often documentaries are the most influential in shaping opinions of the uninitiated.
I suppose there was always the possibility that someone might eventually be charged with something. There was also the possibilty that no-one wanted de Freitas answering questions about what the UK police did, said and thought. That was why they lawyered up to stop that information being released in the PJ Files. Also all the UK police had to sign non-disclosure agreements.
No-one needed to read the book or watch the documentary, they just needed to read the PJ Files and watch the McCanns documentaries and interviews imo. Had the McCanns ignored Amaral his book and documentary probably wouldn't have appeared on the internet.
Just curious misty, what has giving evidence about the Madeleine McCann case got to do with The Official Secrets Act?
ETA. I must declare an interest here in that I am bound by the Act.
No-one needed to read the book or watch the documentary, they just needed to read the PJ Files and watch the McCanns documentaries and interviews imo. Had the McCanns ignored Amaral his book and documentary probably wouldn't have appeared on the internet.
The PJ files shouldn't have been on the internet in the first place. One can only wonder why the Portuguese authorities took no action over this criminal offence.
I always wondered if anything is uncovered which the PJ are unaware of would the UK police pass it on. Amaral did complain about the Uk police being too involved. I am almost certain there is more to this story from the UKl side.No one has demanded you answer but we have the right to question your views, even if doing so makes you uncomfortable and elicits no straight answers.
Lace: "You through your posts show you don't believe the McCann's that Madeleine was abducted, "
No, that is not true- stop trying to make me into something for you to hate. I have consistantly said "I do not believe the parents acccount of what happened to MBM regarding the abduction from the apartment"
"so why shouldn't anyone ask you how the McCann's disposed of Madeleine's body."
They shouldn't ask because they have no right to demand I answer their questions, secondly, where have I claimed there is a body and the McCanns disposed of it?
I wasn't there so I don't know OK.
"Surely you must have some idea or you wouldn't be posting about how there was no whooshing curtains, the abduction didn't happen would you? "
Just because you do not understand my reasons for posting here, does not give you the right to assume you know. I do not require your permission or validation on what I do or say on any issue.
I have no idea what happened to MBM as I wasn't there. I have read many theories, some good some off the planet and the whooshing curtain scenario as described by Kate is NON starter for me.
Just curious misty, what has giving evidence about the Madeleine McCann case got to do with The Official Secrets Act?
ETA. I must declare an interest here in that I am bound by the Act.
The PJ files shouldn't have been on the internet in the first place. One can only wonder why the Portuguese authorities took no action over this criminal offence.
Kate McCann was very upset that the PJ files were released to the media for some reason. She never quite grasped the idea that Portugal was another country with a different culture and different laws imo.I think she was upset because they were illegally posted on the net, nothing to do with her grasp or otherwise of Portuguese culture.
Some might suggest an outlandish Ashkenazic Bloodline theory is sad too. Innit?
I find your entire post total rubbish. Imo... SY will simply follow the evidence
How many people in Portugal or posters on this forum/other social media platforms would have considered still looking for Madeleine after the publication of Amaral's book & watching the documentary? Very often documentaries are the most influential in shaping opinions of the uninitiated.Negligible.
The PJ files shouldn't have been on the internet in the first place. One can only wonder why the Portuguese authorities took no action over this criminal offence.
How many people in Portugal or posters on this forum/other social media platforms would have considered still looking for Madeleine after the publication of Amaral's book & watching the documentary? Very often documentaries are the most influential in shaping opinions of the uninitiated.Quite often documentaries are made with the sole objective of influencing public opinion based on the opinion and beliefs of the documentary maker.
Are we supposed to be eyeing up every blonde child we see?
Stopping them in the street & checking their eyes for a defect?
How are the public supposed to go about looking for Madeleine exactly?
How are the public supposed to go about looking for Madeleine exactly?
The public responded by reporting sightings of every child who was even slightly similar and who, in the opinion of the reporter, looked unhappy. That wasn't helpful in any way shape or form; it wasted resources.
As Kate says in her book ...
Snip
Sometimes ‘Madeleine’ has been seen in different countries, thousands of miles apart, on the same day.
These tip-offs needed to be sifted and any credible information followed up.
____________________________________________________________
What she did not know at time of writing was that Ricardo Paiva was in receipt of information which he filed as irrelevant to the case without bothering to follow leads which should have been followed up.
Portuguese police 'ignored Madeleine McCann leads'
Portuguese police have ignored hundreds of potential new leads in the Madeleine McCann case because of their belief that she is already dead, it has been claimed.
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
7:30AM GMT 12 Feb 2010
Details of possible sightings from across Europe have been forwarded to Portuguese investigators by local forces but no effort has been made to follow them up.
Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41, learnt of the existence of the dossier of new information, including tips offs, license plate numbers and even photographs of children who could be their daughter, during a court hearing in Lisbon that ended Wednesday.
"They were shocked at what was in it and, even worse, what little had been done to follow any of it up,” said Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCann family.
"Kate and Gerry have consistently known that potential fresh information was not being properly followed up, if at all.”
The potential new leads date from July 2008 when the case was officially shelved by Portuguese police after they failed to find any evidence of the missing girl.
The confidential dossier contains hundreds of statements that could prove useful in solving the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance from an Algarve holiday apartment on May 3, 2007.
The McCanns’ legal team became aware of the file during court proceedings as part of a libel trial brought by the couple against the former detective, Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial investigation.
The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte, accused current Algarve police chief Ricardo Paiva of deliberately ignoring the leads because they did not fit in with the theory that Madeleine’s parents were involved in her disappearance.
Last month he appeared in court as a witness in support of former colleague Mr Amaral, who has written a book alleging that the girl died in the holiday apartment and her parents fabricated a tale of abduction after hiding her body.
"Every piece of information (in the dossier of potential new leads) was treated the same way - Ricardo Paiva writes on it 'this is not relevant to the investigation',” Mrs Duarte said from her office in the Portuguese capital on Thursday.
“He believed and to this day still believes that Madeleine is dead. I asked him: ‘How can you find a person when you are not looking for them?’”.
She said some of the leads seemed credible, including a cluster of sightings by independent eye witnesses in northern Italy, and had been forwarded by police forces in the UK, Spain, France and Italy but ignored by their Portuguese counterparts.
Copies of the files would now be passed to the McCanns to be followed up by private investigators hired to search for their daughter.
"But I am angry because it is the Portuguese investigative police who should be doing this job,” Mrs Duarte, added.
"They have the power and capability to do it. It is they who should be doing it not and not my clients."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
remember little boushka and how supporters of the mcanns thought she was maddie i remember reading that poor little girl was traumatised she didnt even look like maddie
And the McCanns had trouble remembering any which is highly suspicious.Cite please ... or maybe something to support how you arrived at forming your opinion.
I can't remember the details, but maybe the tourist photo wasn't all it was made out to be
We'll never know will we? CCTV photos of a little English speaking girl at a garage in Morocco in the early days bearing a resemblance to Madeleine weren't checked out until too late ...
How long does it take to cross from Portugal to Morocco by boat?
As Kate says in her book ...
Snip
Sometimes ‘Madeleine’ has been seen in different countries, thousands of miles apart, on the same day.
These tip-offs needed to be sifted and any credible information followed up.
____________________________________________________________
What she did not know at time of writing was that Ricardo Paiva was in receipt of information which he filed as irrelevant to the case without bothering to follow leads which should have been followed up.
Portuguese police 'ignored Madeleine McCann leads'
Portuguese police have ignored hundreds of potential new leads in the Madeleine McCann case because of their belief that she is already dead, it has been claimed.
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon
7:30AM GMT 12 Feb 2010
Details of possible sightings from across Europe have been forwarded to Portuguese investigators by local forces but no effort has been made to follow them up.
Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41, learnt of the existence of the dossier of new information, including tips offs, license plate numbers and even photographs of children who could be their daughter, during a court hearing in Lisbon that ended Wednesday.
"They were shocked at what was in it and, even worse, what little had been done to follow any of it up,” said Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCann family.
"Kate and Gerry have consistently known that potential fresh information was not being properly followed up, if at all.”
The potential new leads date from July 2008 when the case was officially shelved by Portuguese police after they failed to find any evidence of the missing girl.
The confidential dossier contains hundreds of statements that could prove useful in solving the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance from an Algarve holiday apartment on May 3, 2007.
The McCanns’ legal team became aware of the file during court proceedings as part of a libel trial brought by the couple against the former detective, Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial investigation.
The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte, accused current Algarve police chief Ricardo Paiva of deliberately ignoring the leads because they did not fit in with the theory that Madeleine’s parents were involved in her disappearance.
Last month he appeared in court as a witness in support of former colleague Mr Amaral, who has written a book alleging that the girl died in the holiday apartment and her parents fabricated a tale of abduction after hiding her body.
"Every piece of information (in the dossier of potential new leads) was treated the same way - Ricardo Paiva writes on it 'this is not relevant to the investigation',” Mrs Duarte said from her office in the Portuguese capital on Thursday.
“He believed and to this day still believes that Madeleine is dead. I asked him: ‘How can you find a person when you are not looking for them?’”.
She said some of the leads seemed credible, including a cluster of sightings by independent eye witnesses in northern Italy, and had been forwarded by police forces in the UK, Spain, France and Italy but ignored by their Portuguese counterparts.
Copies of the files would now be passed to the McCanns to be followed up by private investigators hired to search for their daughter.
"But I am angry because it is the Portuguese investigative police who should be doing this job,” Mrs Duarte, added.
"They have the power and capability to do it. It is they who should be doing it not and not my clients."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
Cite please ... or maybe something to support how you arrived at forming your opinion.
All those sightings, none of which were memorable. They distracted the PJ though, and have given Operation Grange something to do.
Distracted the PJ? The public were looking out for Madeleine, if they thought they saw her they rang the Police. Do you think that in other cases of missing children there are no sightings? That the Police haven't had to follow up on the sightings of the public? That is an excuse for a poor investigation IMO as well as the 'couldn't have a reconstruction as there were too many tourists' 'couldn't take the McCann's clothes away because it would look bad' come off it.
The PJ were inundated with unlikely sightings of Madeleine even though there was no evidence that she had been taken. Neither they nor any other police force could be expected to follow up on thousands of sightings. It wasn't the PJ who decided not to have a reconstitution or leave Madeleine's clothes with her parents. Pressure was brought to bear on them imo.
Other Police forces have managed to deal with thousands of sightings. I don't think pressure was on the Police, other than to find Madeleine.
Distracted the PJ? The public were looking out for Madeleine, if they thought they saw her they rang the Police. Do you think that in other cases of missing children there are no sightings? That the Police haven't had to follow up on the sightings of the public? That is an excuse for a poor investigation IMO as well as the 'couldn't have a reconstruction as there were too many tourists' 'couldn't take the McCann's clothes away because it would look bad' come off it.This inundation of data needs filtering, as in any ad-hoc set up in any realm, then sort the wheat from the chaff, then prioritising, then resources allocated. But the initial collation of data is time consuming, the sorting process is fraught with bias / mistakes / oversights, then the prioritising is usually subjective and the resources are scarce / stretched.
This inundation of data needs filtering, as in any ad-hoc set up in any realm, then sort the wheat from the chaff, then prioritising, then resources allocated. But the initial collation of data is time consuming, the sorting process is fraught with bias / mistakes / oversights, then the prioritising is usually subjective and the resources are scarce / stretched.
How many public appeals are ultimately successful i.e. the child is found alive and well, as a ratio?
What is the usual method of Crimewatch to provide a clear and concise, compelling narrative for the general public to consume? The conduct a dramatisation / reconstruction - it's pretty normal.
OG have probably had many sightings, they have had to sort the wheat from the chaff too.I'll let you off the hook - show me just one.
Amaral give up as soon as he came to the conclusion that Madeleine died in 5a.- quote
Many of the sightings were collated by Portuguese cops and stamped “NFA” – No Further Action – as they believed the youngster was dead - compounding the despair of parents Kate and Gerry.
OG have probably had many sightings, they have had to sort the wheat from the chaff too.
Amaral give up as soon as he came to the conclusion that Madeleine died in 5a.- quote
Many of the sightings were collated by Portuguese cops and stamped “NFA” – No Further Action – as they believed the youngster was dead - compounding the despair of parents Kate and Gerry.
from: The General on November 07, 2019, 07:34:36 AM
Some might suggest an outlandish Ashkenazic Bloodline theory is sad too. Innit?
@ The General:Eh? What? No. County of Wexford. Not many derived from the House of David round those parts at the turn of the 20th century.
Did you see my responce to the unplesantly critical post you made (almost certainly) about me and my theory sent to SY ?
Re: KM's Paperback (PB)
« Reply #1289 on: November 08, 2019, 01:34:03 AM »
Quote
Modify
Are you Ashkenazic, The General? Recently discovered, I think I have some Ashkenazic roots. Shalom
Oh, and are you Jesuit?
You don't have to answer if you prefer not to.
Other Police forces have managed to deal with thousands of sightings. I don't think pressure was on the Police, other than to find Madeleine.
OG have probably had many sightings, they have had to sort the wheat from the chaff too.
Amaral give up as soon as he came to the conclusion that Madeleine died in 5a.- quote
Many of the sightings were collated by Portuguese cops and stamped “NFA” – No Further Action – as they believed the youngster was dead - compounding the despair of parents Kate and Gerry.
NFA or NOA?
The quote was from the newspaper.
NFA or NOA?Just for clarity could you tell me what these two acronyms stand for please?
Just for clarity could you tell me what these two acronyms stand for please?
But we know there's no evidence anyone entered or exited via the window.
We have evidence. The curtains were moved and the curtains' strap was on the floor.
But is it true? Which independent witness saw this ?"The right-hand tieback has fallen between the foot of the bed and the wicker armchair -
"The right-hand tieback has fallen between the foot of the bed and the wicker armchair -
(https://2img.net/h/3.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SlufQrTrcII/AAAAAAAAFo4/Vi_JqmoMmsA/s400/maddieEdgeOfBed.jpg) Goncalo Amaral
What does that prove ? It could have been staged.No one has suggested it proves anything but it could be evidence of someone coming or going through the window, or of tampering with it in some way.
No one has suggested it proves anything but it could be evidence of someone coming or going through the window, or of tampering with it in some way.
Or as suggested it could have been staged - then the reason would be why.If it was staged you’d have to ask why they stopped at leaving a bit of the curtain on the floor and didn’t think to break open the shutters or leave them open for the police’s arrival. Also you’d have to wonder why they staged it by leaving their fingerprints on the window. Piss poor staging IMO.
Also what would that evidence lead to....if it had been staged