UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Brietta on October 06, 2016, 01:53:34 PM
-
I would imagine that every remembered second of the time immediately before and immediately after the traumatic blow of discovering her eldest child missing from her bed probably plays in a continuous loop in the head and heart of Madeleine's mother even today.
59
-
I would imagine that every remembered second of the time immediately before and immediately after the traumatic blow of discovering her eldest child missing from her bed probably plays in a continuous loop in the head and heart of Madeleine's mother even today.
Although in saying that Brie, some memories do get blurred with the passage of time.
-
I would imagine that every remembered second of the time immediately before and immediately after the traumatic blow of discovering her eldest child missing from her bed probably plays in a continuous loop in the head and heart of Madeleine's mother even today.
She seemed to have a good remembrance of the real or imagined slight by Mrs Fenn;
I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. [Madeleine]
Her memory for other facts wasn't quite so good though;
As I ran back into the children’s room the closed curtains flew up in a gust of wind. [Madeleine]
the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
-
She seemed to have a good remembrance of the real or imagined slight by Mrs Fenn;
I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. [Madeleine]
Her memory for other facts wasn't quite so good though;
As I ran back into the children’s room the closed curtains flew up in a gust of wind. [Madeleine]
the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Given that Kate knew when she wrote her book that her statements were available for all to read on the internet, do you think she deliberately altered certain fairly inconsequential facts to suit her book for reasons which aren't immediately apparent, or do you think it's more likely she simply remembered some details differently over time? Whichever, it's certainly given people like you a lot of mileage - you must have contrasted and compared pretty much every word by now! A mammoth piece of work for which I'm sure you should be applauded, well done indeed. 8@??)(
-
Given that Kate knew when she wrote her book that her statements were available for all to read on the internet, do you think she deliberately altered certain fairly inconsequential facts to suit her book for reasons which aren't immediately apparent, or do you think it's more likely she simply remembered some details differently over time? Whichever, it's certainly given people like you a lot of mileage - you must have contrasted and compared pretty much every word by now! A mammoth piece of work for which I'm sure you should be applauded, well done indeed. 8@??)(
Her book was written with extreme care with only one agenda.
-
Her book was written with extreme care with only one agenda.
So are you suggesting she took great care to change details that she'd made in her statements, which were readily available for all to read on the internet - what do you suppose her reason for doing this was? To make people think she's a lying cow perhaps?
-
So are you suggesting she took great care to change details that she'd made in her statements, which were readily available for all to read on the internet - what do you suppose her reason for doing this was? To make people think she's a lying cow perhaps?
The book was written with one agenda and that was to put her/their version of events on record.
-
The book was written with one agenda and that was to put her/their version of events on record.
Her version of events were already on record - in the police files, readily available for anyone to read on the net. However some people believe that Kate McCann deliberately falsified details in her book, despite the fact that they could easily be cross-checked with her online statements. Is she really as thick as shit to think she wouldn't be found out? I guess some people think so!
-
The book was written with one agenda and that was to put her/their version of events on record.
I think she wrote the book to make money to put into Madeleine's Fund which was running out. At the time the Fund was the only vehicle which was focused on finding Madeleine. In Portugal ... Madeleine's case was shelved. There was no British case.
-
Her version of events were already on record - in the police files, readily available for anyone to read on the net. However some people believe that Kate McCann deliberately falsified details in her book, despite the fact that they could easily be cross-checked with her online statements. Is she really as thick as shit to think she wouldn't be found out? I guess some people think so!
The statements contain only so much detail, the book fills in the gaps.
-
Given that Kate knew when she wrote her book that her statements were available for all to read on the internet, do you think she deliberately altered certain fairly inconsequential facts to suit her book for reasons which aren't immediately apparent, or do you think it's more likely she simply remembered some details differently over time? Whichever, it's certainly given people like you a lot of mileage - you must have contrasted and compared pretty much every word by now! A mammoth piece of work for which I'm sure you should be applauded, well done indeed. 8@??)(
So the position of the curtains was inconsequential? It was only when they 'whooshed' according to Kate that she saw the open window and shutters. Her reaction?
the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up. Nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no! [Madeleine]
Quite a strong reaction to an inconsequential detail.
-
The statements contain only so much detail, the book fills in the gaps.
And yet there are people who are making a hobby of comparing the book to the statements in order to find discrepancies in order to make some sort of a point. My point is that if the book had been written prior to the release of the files on line then those hobbyists may have a point, but as it happened the other way round their hobby is kinda pointless, if you get my point.
-
And yet there are people who are making a hobby of comparing the book to the statements in order to find discrepancies in order to make some sort of a point. My point is that if the book had been written prior to the release of the files on line then those hobbyists may have a point, but as it happened the other way round their hobby is kinda pointless, if you get my point.
The overriding reaction to Madeleine's disappearance was an outpouring of sympathy directed at her parents. One of the results was that a lot of money was donated to the Fund.
The book's stated aim was to raise more money for the Fund. Therefore it's main theme was the suffering of the McCanns, in my opinion. It was entitled 'Madeleine' but it wasn't her story.
-
The overriding reaction to Madeleine's disappearance was an outpouring of sympathy directed at her parents. One of the results was that a lot of money was donated to the Fund.
The book's stated aim was to raise more money for the Fund. Therefore it's main theme was the suffering of the McCanns, in my opinion. It was entitled 'Madeleine' but it wasn't her story.
If the book had been the story of Madeleine it wouldn't have been very interesting or very long would it? No disrespect to the poor child intended. What aspect of Madeleine do you wish Kate had covered in much greater detail?
-
If the book had been the story of Madeleine it wouldn't have been very interesting or very long would it? No disrespect to the poor child intended. What aspect of Madeleine do you wish Kate had covered in much greater detail?
It was a misnomer nevertheless. It's only interesting if you want to read a 'poor me' book in my opinion. The list is long; beginning with Mrs Fenn and moving on to the GNR, the PJ, the interpreters, the media, the British police, the Portuguese and British governments, the Home Secretary; all are criticised to a greater or lesser extent.
-
It was a misnomer nevertheless. It's only interesting if you want to read a 'poor me' book in my opinion. The list is long; beginning with Mrs Fenn and moving on to the GNR, the PJ, the interpreters, the media, the British police, the Portuguese and British governments, the Home Secretary; all are criticised to a greater or lesser extent.
LOL. You seem to find it intensely interesting. How many times a day do you refer to it?
-
It was a misnomer nevertheless. It's only interesting if you want to read a 'poor me' book in my opinion. The list is long; beginning with Mrs Fenn and moving on to the GNR, the PJ, the interpreters, the media, the British police, the Portuguese and British governments, the Home Secretary; all are criticised to a greater or lesser extent.
From memory, you have missed some out e.g. the Tapas receptionist who was naughty enough to write that note, left in plain view, that the T9 got a block booking so they could nip back and check on their kids from time to time. The note that does not seem to appear in the PJ Files, though Kate claimed it does.
-
You're child disappears while you're in a foreign country, you believe she's been abducted, the police stop actively looking for her after a week and decide that you covered up her death. Fancy writing a "poor me" book. What on earth have you got to complain about? You should be glad the police bothered to look at all and thankful they didn't beat you to a pulp - you probably would have deserved it anyway, you disgusting child neglecter!
-
From memory, you have missed some out e.g. the Tapas receptionist who was naughty enough to write that note, left in plain view, that the T9 got a block booking so they could nip back and check on their kids from time to time. The note that does not seem to appear in the PJ Files, though Kate claimed it does.
It is irrational to imply that a false claim would be made about the existence of a document in police files when the police are in possession of exactly the same information being quoted and would immediately know if a falsehood was being disseminated.
-
It is irrational to imply that a false claim would be made about the existence of a document in police files when the police are in possession of exactly the same information being quoted and would immediately know if a falsehood was being disseminated.
And which police would care?
Does the PJ track and prosecute falsehoods in a UK book?
Has OG fed this claim into HOLMES 2, only for the system to spit back at them, "Hang on blokes, where is the entry to this note?"
Anyone claiming the note exists merely needs to provide the note, or at least the index entry to it.
Kate says it was upon getting professional translations of the PJ Files that she realised such a note existed. So where is this note?
-
And which police would care?
Does the PJ track and prosecute falsehoods in a UK book?
Has OG fed this claim into HOLMES 2, only for the system to spit back at them, "Hang on blokes, where is the entry to this note?"
Anyone claiming the note exists merely needs to provide the note, or at least the index entry to it.
Kate says it was upon getting professional translations of the PJ Files that she realised such a note existed. So where is this note?
If you have have been a suspect in a criminal investigation why are you going to give the police ammunition to further their suspicions that you are being deceitful?
-
My own view is that Kate had to write this book, the money being a secondary consideration at the time. She had to put her innermost thoughts down on paper for the sake of her own sanity.
-
You're child disappears while you're in a foreign country, you believe she's been abducted, the police stop actively looking for her after a week and decide that you covered up her death. Fancy writing a "poor me" book. What on earth have you got to complain about? You should be glad the police bothered to look at all and thankful they didn't beat you to a pulp - you probably would have deserved it anyway, you disgusting child neglecter!
Saying she's been abducted is not the same as believing it to be true.
-
My own view is that Kate had to write this book, the money being a secondary consideration at the time. She had to put her innermost thoughts down on paper for the sake of Cher own sanity.
A defence looking for a trial.
-
You're child disappears while you're in a foreign country, you believe she's been abducted, the police stop actively looking for her after a week and decide that you covered up her death. Fancy writing a "poor me" book. What on earth have you got to complain about? You should be glad the police bothered to look at all and thankful they didn't beat you to a pulp - you probably would have deserved it anyway, you disgusting child neglecter!
Well that's the criticism of the PJ explained to yur satisfaction. Care to tackle the rest?
Mrs Fenn, the interpreters, the media, the British police, the Portuguese and British governments, the Home Secretary; all are criticised to a greater or lesser extent.
-
Well that's the criticism of the PJ explained to yur satisfaction. Care to tackle the rest?
Mrs Fenn, the interpreters, the media, the British police, the Portuguese and British governments, the Home Secretary; all are criticised to a greater or lesser extent.
As I'm not Kate and didn't live through the experiences she did it's pointless asking ME to justify her opinions about all the above. Perhaps it would satisfy YOU if I simply described her as a moany old cow who should have kept quiet and not bothered to express her opinions in print? But then if she hadn't think of all the sport you'd have missed out on!
-
Although in saying that Brie, some memories do get blurred with the passage of time.
There is one interview where Gerry says he hasn't read Kate's diary. I presume he read Kate's book before it was published, but he is recorded as disagreeing with Kate over how they first met. Any recollection would have different facts in it. Each person notices different things. I was really impressed that Kate was able to recollect so much so I have no doubt it is factual from her point of view. There was nothing in it that made me think she was lying. Well only one bit for I had thought she had seen CuddleCat on a shelf to start with. Maybe we'll never know, about that.
-
Well that's the criticism of the PJ explained to yur satisfaction. Care to tackle the rest?
Mrs Fenn, the interpreters, the media, the British police, the Portuguese and British governments, the Home Secretary; all are criticised to a greater or lesser extent.
So what? Isn't she entitled to have an opinion on people whom she meets and what happens to her in her life? The rest of us do it all the time.
However, when it comes to the McCanns there are people who never stop doing it and will pore over every word they say to seek out stuff to criticise them about - no matter how petty it is.
It seems to me that some folk wholeheartedly approve of criticism as long as it's directed at the McCanns - but appear to disapprove of their similar right to be critical of anything or anyone themselves - simply because they are the McCanns.
More than a tad irrational and hypocritical IMO.
-
So what? Isn't she entitled to have an opinion on people whom she meets and what happens to her in her life? The rest of us do it all the time.
However, when it comes to the McCanns there are people who never stop doing it and will pore over every word they say to seek out stuff to criticise them about - no matter how petty it is.
It seems to me that some folk wholeheartedly approve of criticism as long as it's directed at the McCanns - but appear to disapprove of their similar right to be critical of anything or anyone themselves - simply because they are the McCanns.
More than a tad irrational and hypocritical IMO.
Even though Kate McCann must know there's no evidence of abduction and that other opinions exist, that isn't addressed in her book. Once more the abduction is presented as a fact when it is by no means proved. The only justification she offers is her own opinion.
The book then documents every injustice she and her husband were subjected to, as the parents of an abducted child. She may indeed believe her daughter was abducted but expecting everyone else to believe it just because she says so is unrealistic.
The book would have been more interesting in my opinion if she had explained some of the anomalies which have aroused suspicion. We know from the witness statements that the group decided to operate their own listening service before they arrived in PdL, so her repeated claims that she left her children alone because the resort felt safe can be questioned. As can her claims that she never doubted the wisdom of leaving the patio door open; her friends testified that she did.
-
Even though Kate McCann must know there's no evidence of abduction and that other opinions exist, that isn't addressed in her book. Once more the abduction is presented as a fact when it is by no means proved. The only justification she offers is her own opinion.
The book then documents every injustice she and her husband were subjected to, as the parents of an abducted child. She may indeed believe her daughter was abducted but expecting everyone else to believe it just because she says so is unrealistic.
The book would have been more interesting in my opinion if she had explained some of the anomalies which have aroused suspicion. We know from the witness statements that the group decided to operate their own listening service before they arrived in PdL, so her repeated claims that she left her children alone because the resort felt safe can be questioned. As can her claims that she never doubted the wisdom of leaving the patio door open; her friends testified that she did.
Then you would have accused her of trying to justify her actions and making lame excuses. Don't even try to deny it.
-
Even though Kate McCann must know there's no evidence of abduction and that other opinions exist, that isn't addressed in her book. Once more the abduction is presented as a fact when it is by no means proved. The only justification she offers is her own opinion.
The book then documents every injustice she and her husband were subjected to, as the parents of an abducted child. She may indeed believe her daughter was abducted but expecting everyone else to believe it just because she says so is unrealistic.
The book would have been more interesting in my opinion if she had explained some of the anomalies which have aroused suspicion. We know from the witness statements that the group decided to operate their own listening service before they arrived in PdL, so her repeated claims that she left her children alone because the resort felt safe can be questioned. As can her claims that she never doubted the wisdom of leaving the patio door open; her friends testified that she did.
IMO she didn't write her book for a small group of people in a corner of the internet who (for various reasons imo) desperately want them to be guilty. Why would she even bother - when it's obvious that even if Madeleine was found tomorrow, there are those who would immediately claim a conspiracy/cover up rather than admit they were wrong?
Neither does she have any obligation to prove her/their innocence to those same people - or to anyone else for that matter.
Whatever concerns she may have had about adopting the listening method of childcare - it's obvious that the possibility of an abduction never entered their minds at any time. Something which IIRC the PT AG stated was perfectly acceptable as they had no reason to think otherwise. I'm sure that the fact that all of their children always slept soundly for hours immediately after going to sleep also featured strongly in their decision.
There is no evidence against the McCanns and no credible motive - which IMO is why some sceptics have resorted to conducting a marathon 'character assassination' against the McCanns and those in authority who believe that Madeleine was abducted.
Fortunately poring over and dissecting every last word the McCanns have ever spoken and picking out bits which suit that particular agenda whilst ignoring anything that doesn't suit - is not how professional policemen behave - but it is how kangaroo courts operate IMO.
Kate's book was a best seller and none of the scores of people mentioned in it have sued her for any of its content. That should tell you something.
AIMHO
-
IMO she didn't write her book for a small group of people in a corner of the internet who (for various reasons imo) desperately want them to be guilty. Why would she even bother - when it's obvious that even if Madeleine was found tomorrow, there are those who would immediately claim a conspiracy/cover up rather than admit they were wrong?
Neither does she have any obligation to prove her/their innocence to those same people - or to anyone else for that matter.
Whatever concerns she may have had about adopting the listening method of childcare - it's obvious that the possibility of an abduction never entered their minds at any time. Something which IIRC the PT AG stated was perfectly acceptable as they had no reason to think otherwise. I'm sure that the fact that all of their children always slept soundly for hours immediately after going to sleep also featured strongly in their decision.
There is no evidence against the McCanns and no credible motive - which IMO is why some sceptics have resorted to conducting a marathon 'character assassination' against the McCanns and those in authority who believe that Madeleine was abducted.
Fortunately poring over and dissecting every last word the McCanns have ever spoken and picking out bits which suit that particular agenda whilst ignoring anything that doesn't suit - is not how professional policemen behave - but it is how kangaroo courts operate IMO.
Kate's book was a best seller and none of the scores of people mentioned in it have sued her for any of its content. That should tell you something.
AIMHO
Always slept soundly for hours?
-
IMO she didn't write her book for a small group of people in a corner of the internet who (for various reasons imo) desperately want them to be guilty. Why would she even bother - when it's obvious that even if Madeleine was found tomorrow, there are those who would immediately claim a conspiracy/cover up rather than admit they were wrong?
Neither does she have any obligation to prove her/their innocence to those same people - or to anyone else for that matter.
Whatever concerns she may have had about adopting the listening method of childcare - it's obvious that the possibility of an abduction never entered their minds at any time. Something which IIRC the PT AG stated was perfectly acceptable as they had no reason to think otherwise. I'm sure that the fact that all of their children always slept soundly for hours immediately after going to sleep also featured strongly in their decision.
There is no evidence against the McCanns and no credible motive - which IMO is why some sceptics have resorted to conducting a marathon 'character assassination' against the McCanns and those in authority who believe that Madeleine was abducted.
Fortunately poring over and dissecting every last word the McCanns have ever spoken and picking out bits which suit that particular agenda whilst ignoring anything that doesn't suit - is not how professional policemen behave - but it is how kangaroo courts operate IMO.
Kate's book was a best seller and none of the scores of people mentioned in it have sued her for any of its content. That should tell you something.
AIMHO
Your beliefs seem to sum up that post quite succinctly.
Let's face it, you are hardly going to be critical of the Mccanns.
-
Your beliefs seem to sum up that post quite succinctly.
Let's face it, you are hardly going to be critical of the Mccanns.
And let's face it - you are never going to stop being critical of the McCanns. So what?
-
Always slept soundly for hours?
Quote from Kates book
Sean and Amelie had always been perfect sleepers, and Madeleine had outgrown the restlessness of her babyhood, so, barring illness and the odd instance of playing up at bedtime, ours was normally a relatively quiet household by 8.00p.m. If Madeleine ever woke during the night it was always in the small hours, practically never earlier than two or three in the morning.
End quote.
-
You're child disappears while you're in a foreign country, you believe she's been abducted, the police stop actively looking for her after a week and decide that you covered up her death. Fancy writing a "poor me" book. What on earth have you got to complain about? You should be glad the police bothered to look at all and thankful they didn't beat you to a pulp - you probably would have deserved it anyway, you disgusting child neglecter!
Slightly longer than a week, Alfie. It was around the time Grime performed the searches with his dogs that that the PJ started looking inwardly towards the McCanns ....
-
Quote from Kates book
Sean and Amelie had always been perfect sleepers, and Madeleine had outgrown the restlessness of her babyhood, so, barring illness and the odd instance of playing up at bedtime, ours was normally a relatively quiet household by 8.00p.m. If Madeleine ever woke during the night it was always in the small hours, practically never earlier than two or three in the morning.
End quote.
Witness statements.
-
Slightly longer than a week, Alfie. It was around the time Grime performed the searches with his dogs that that the PJ started looking inwardly towards the McCanns ....
The PJ called off their search for Madeleine after one week, unlike police in Britain who kept up the search for April Jones for months.
-
Witness statements.
Kate McCann is a witness to her own children's sleeping habits is she not?
-
The PJ called off their search for Madeleine after one week, unlike police in Britain who kept up the search for April Jones for months.
Cite.
-
Even though Kate McCann must know there's no evidence of abduction and that other opinions exist, that isn't addressed in her book. Once more the abduction is presented as a fact when it is by no means proved. The only justification she offers is her own opinion.
The book then documents every injustice she and her husband were subjected to, as the parents of an abducted child. She may indeed believe her daughter was abducted but expecting everyone else to believe it just because she says so is unrealistic.
The book would have been more interesting in my opinion if she had explained some of the anomalies which have aroused suspicion. We know from the witness statements that the group decided to operate their own listening service before they arrived in PdL, so her repeated claims that she left her children alone because the resort felt safe can be questioned. As can her claims that she never doubted the wisdom of leaving the patio door open; her friends testified that she did.
Police refuse to rule out abduction as they seek to solve mystery of missing RAF man Corrie McKeague
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/police-refuse-rule-out-abduction-9001708
Until it is known for certain what may have happened to a missing person ... competent investigators don't rule everything out because it doesn't fit with the lead detective's theory.
-
The PJ called off their search for Madeleine after one week, unlike police in Britain who kept up the search for April Jones for months.
Seemingly, two weeks:
The other dogs and their handlers remained on site until 18th May when at about 19.00 they returned to Cino/EPG as their presence was no longer require in P da L, although it was determined that if their use were required in the future, they would return.
Signed
30 November 2007
Operation Commander
Major Sequeira
-
Witness statements.
Cartas Rogatorias Vol V
Pages 20 to 21
Leicestershire Police Force
Statement by Sharon LEWIN
Occupation: Teaching Assistant
This statement (2 pages) is truthful in accordance with my understanding.
Date: 21st April 2008
I am the person referred to above and I work as a teaching assistant at Laurels Nursery School, Melton Road, Queniborough, Leicestershire. The nursery school has the capacity to receive about 80 children full-time, aged between 6 weeks and 5 years and is open from 07.30 to 18.00 daily. The children are grouped according to age and I work in the section that looks after children aged between two and half and three years old. I have worked at the nursery for five years and I am currently on maternity leave.
I got to know Madeleine and her parents Kate and Gerry through my work at the nursery school. Madeleine started at the nursery when she was about two years old.
When she was two and a half she joined the group supervised by me, I think it was in 2006, and she remained there for about 6 months. Madeleine attended on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
She would be dropped off between 08.00 and 08.30 and would return home at about 17.00. The dropping off and picking up was taken in turns by the parents and as a result of this Kate and Gerry asked me to take care of the children during the evening on some occasions. Kate would pick Madeleine up from the nursery at the end of the day and I would accompany them to their house. We would have tea and I would help give Madeleine her bath.
Kate and Gerry would go out and I would watch a DVD with the girl before telling her a bedtime story
I think I did this about 5 times and on each occasion it was at their home in Rothley
................ snipped..................................
..... I had the opportunity to be present at her bedtime when I looked after her. Bath time was at about 18.30 - 19.00 and she would later go to bed at about 19.30 – 20.00 I would read her a story or two and she would always fall asleep half way through.
Gerry and Kate would normally return home at about 22.30 and before this I would check whether she was all right, by looking around the bedroom door. I do not have knowledge of the girl waking up after she fell asleep.
This statement was made by me and is truthful in accordance with my understanding.
End quote
-
IMO she didn't write her book for a small group of people in a corner of the internet who (for various reasons imo) desperately want them to be guilty. Why would she even bother - when it's obvious that even if Madeleine was found tomorrow, there are those who would immediately claim a conspiracy/cover up rather than admit they were wrong?
Neither does she have any obligation to prove her/their innocence to those same people - or to anyone else for that matter.
Whatever concerns she may have had about adopting the listening method of childcare - it's obvious that the possibility of an abduction never entered their minds at any time. Something which IIRC the PT AG stated was perfectly acceptable as they had no reason to think otherwise. I'm sure that the fact that all of their children always slept soundly for hours immediately after going to sleep also featured strongly in their decision.
There is no evidence against the McCanns and no credible motive - which IMO is why some sceptics have resorted to conducting a marathon 'character assassination' against the McCanns and those in authority who believe that Madeleine was abducted.
Fortunately poring over and dissecting every last word the McCanns have ever spoken and picking out bits which suit that particular agenda whilst ignoring anything that doesn't suit - is not how professional policemen behave - but it is how kangaroo courts operate IMO.
Kate's book was a best seller and none of the scores of people mentioned in it have sued her for any of its content. That should tell you something.
AIMHO
You seem to be very upset about my criticism of the book. It was OK, as I said, if you want to read a 'poor me' book. It was not, in my opinion, a fair representation of the facts.
The legal summary does mention abduction, but it doesn't say that's what happened;
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
I find it quite amusing that anyone who doesn't agree with the McCann's version of events is accused of 'desperately wanting them to be guilty'. I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 because, as the Legal Summary says, the evidence to support any of the possibilities isn't there. Therefore anyone who is convinced of the McCann's innocence has reached that conclusion without evidence to support it.
On the other hand, there are facts showing that their evidence wasn't completely factual for some reason. What that reason was I don't pretend to know, but facts are facts and I see no reason why they should be ignored.
-
I'm astounded that an (apparent) scholar of Shakespeare and Chaucer can make as big a hash of Kate's book as s/he also made of Mark Harrison's reports. ....
-
I'm astounded that an (apparent) scholar of Shakespeare and Chaucer can make as big a hash of Kate's book as s/he also made of Mark Harrison's reports. ....
At least I don't misquote texts to support my opinions like some.
-
Is there anyone posting on here who doesn't want to be proven right ?
Of course not.
-
You do think they dunnit though don't you? And of course you want to be proven right don't you?
Does posting an accusation as a question make it less of an accusation?
I have repeatedly said I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007. I have considered all the possibilities and I agree with the legal summary; the crime is unknown.
How I can be proved right when I don't know what happened escapes me.
-
Does posting an accusation as a question make it less of an accusation?
I have repeatedly said I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007. I have considered all the possibilities and I agree with the legal summary; the crime is unknown.
How I can be proved right when I don't know what happened escapes me.
The archiving summary makes plain the McCanns had no hand in any crime committed.
And the final PJ report says, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant.
-
There is evidence of an abduction IMO. The fact that some folk don't want to believe it is not my problem and neither is it SY's.
We don't have all the facts which SY have - we only have some of them We don't even know how many of the facts are not in our possession.
Therefore it's unrealistic IMO to come to firm conclusions based on partial evidence. It's like trying to bake a cake when you only have part of the recipe.
On the other hand the professionals of two countries who are privy to all the available facts have concluded based on those facts - that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest. It is totally realistic to accept that professional experts know better than armchair detectives IMO.
The only way to oppose that situation is to suggest some kind of major conspiracy - which takes me back to those who desperately want the McCanns to be guilty. IMO even if irrefutable proof was to be presented to them - the conspiracy card will always be played by those sceptics rather than admit they were wrong.
IOW - When all else fails - claim a conspiracy.
AIMHO
I remember a thread looking for evidence of abduction. As I recall none was found. There were constant references to the opinion of SY but they have never unequivocally said that is their only hypothesis and they seem close to giving up in my opinion.
I have reached no conclusions as to what happened, unlike some. I look at facts and see what they can reveal. I get accused of doing that in order to point the finger of suspicion at the McCanns and their friends, but a lot of the time I do it to show that it can't be assumed that something is true just because people say it is.
People can accuse me of anything they wish, but that doesn't make them right either.
-
Kate McCann is a witness to her own children's sleeping habits is she not?
She probably is when she is present.
-
The archiving summary makes plain the McCanns had no hand in any crime committed.
And the final PJ report says, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant.
Does this say what you think it says, or does it say there's no evidence which proves they committed a crime?
The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The PJ statement is strange because they seem to have accepted that the alarm was raised at 10pm without any supporting evidence.
-
Does this say what you think it says, or does it say there's no evidence which proves they committed a crime?
The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The PJ statement is strange because they seem to have accepted that the alarm was raised at 10pm without any supporting evidence.
WHAT?! There's a ton of supporting evidence!
-
Kates book was a scathing of everyone and anything she could think of, as her sister in law described it.......ie it was a blaming book...blame everyone for her own mistkes day in day out...simples...guilt farming project
She even said madeleine might have been doped during the day ie blamng the childminders
-
Kates book was a scathng of everyone and anything she could think of, as her sister in law described it.......ie it was a blaming book...blame everyone for her own mistkes day in day out...simples...guilt farming project
She even said madeleine might have been doped during the day ie blamng the childminders
Kate McCann had searched the apartment, it was empty, no one was hiding there. Kate McCann ran down to where the others were and was shouting even before she reached them, they all then rushed to 5a, what chance would anyone have had to take one of the twins? Kate McCann was in a blind panic, not thinking straight, she probably thought run and tell the others quickly.
-
Kates book was a scathng of everyone and anything she could think of, as her sister in law described it.......ie it was a blaming book...blame everyone for her own mistkes day in day out...simples...guilt farming project
She even said madeleine might have been doped during the day ie blamng the childminders
No-one knows how they will react to extreme sudden shock - they just think they do.
When my son fell and broke his arm - the first thing I did when I saw his misshapen arm was to promptly faint. It was left to his sister to run and get help - (for both of us)
Some people freeze in terror, some find their legs have turned to jelly, some cannot speak because their throat has become constricted. Some people even find enormous physical strength from somewhere - I remember reading of how a mother lifted a car off her son!
There are no rules on how to behave when you are in a blind panic. Everyone is different.
IMO
-
When I read Kate's book pages 93 -95 about her check on the kids the entire events doesn't sound like 10 minutes. She herself emphasise how quick it was and back to tell the others that Madeleine was missing.
Yet Gerry back at the table is saying that Kate was taking too long. So ere they expecting Kate to immediately return? It was alright for him to dilly dally but he expects Kate to come back immediately.
What is going on. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Fiona Payne Reply
'Five minutes, less'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
That sounds about right so where does Gerry's 10 minutes come from?
-
When I read Kate's book pages 93 -95 about her check on the kids the entire events doesn't sound like 10 minutes. She herself emphasise how quick it was and back to tell the others that Madeleine was missing.
Yet Gerry back at the table is saying that Kate was taking too long. So ere they expecting Kate to immediately return? It was alright for him to dilly dally but he expects Kate to come back immediately.
What is going on. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Fiona Payne http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
That sounds about right so where does Gerry's 10 minutes come from?
If it took less than 60 seconds to walk to 5A - and say 20 seconds inside checking - and then less than 60 seconds to return to the Tapas - that means that normally the whole thing would take less that 3 minutes.
Therefore any absence lasting say over 5 mins would become noticeable and Gerry would begin to wonder if all was OK.
Nothing sinister in that at all IMO.
I don't think she was gone for 10 mins - but different people have vastly different perceptions of the passage of time. One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.
IMO
-
If it took less than 60 seconds to walk to 5A - and say 20 seconds inside checking - and then less than 60 seconds to return to the Tapas - that means that normally the whole thing would take less that 3 minutes.
Therefore any absence lasting say over 5 mins would become noticeable and Gerry would begin to wonder if all was OK.
Nothing sinister in that at all IMO.
I don't think she was gone for 10 mins - but different people have vastly different perceptions of the passage of time. One person's 5 mins is another person's 10 mins.
IMO
They are going to check the kids and one of the them could have woken or whatever so why the expectation for such a sudden return? If it really was under 5 minutes as Fiona and only minutes as Kate suggests how crazy is it that Gerry thinks it is 10 minutes? There is something suspicious about this IMO. I can't just brush it off sorry.
-
Topic please!
-
Does the book Madeleine cover the aspects raised by the PJ, the hoax abduction site? This has been my point of interest lately, but I'm not sure if anyone still thinks along that line anymore.
"P.J.10 SEP 07
2587 to 2602 Letter of facts surrounding the investigation A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
They should have waited for the decisions from the police authorities, there is strong evidence that the crime scene was altered, some furniture was moved around.
Those changes are indications of simulation.
Does Kate's book deal with these facts?
It doesn't does it. So I'm suggesting since Kate's book is about what she does, it wasn't Kate who "moved the furniture around".
So logically that furniture was moved prior to her check. The "simulation of the abduction scene" was done prior to her check.
Tavares doesn't say when these changes were made so it becomes an option:
1. The simulated abduction scene was made prior to Kate's check.
2. The simulated abduction scene was made during Kate's check (by Kate herself).
3. The simulated abduction scene was made after Kate's check.
I suppose if there was a true conspiracy it is possible to have a 4th option.
4. The simulated abduction scene was made before, during and after Kate's check.
In the book there is evidence of things being moved around after the check. e.g shutters are checked by Gerry and Fiona.
Kate does some minor readjustments herself like opening and closing doors and looking out the open window.
None of these fall into the category of "simulation" even though the "simulation" is only the combination of these very same movements:
Shutters raised,
Window opened,
Door shifted in degree of openness.
Really the one thing that defines an abduction is the removal of the victim. The way the bed covers are folded back are part of it too, and the position of the pink blanket and Cuddle Cat and they are described in her book.
Kate writes that Madeleine was removed prior to her check. So if it is a faked abduction the removal of Madeleine from her bed was either real or faked too. But why would a real child abductor create a simulation?
So Tavares goes on to talk about Madeleine dying in the apartment and her body being moved about in the apartment for a some reason.
It must be added that the cadaver odour signalled a strong odour in the bedroom where the McCann slept, which can indicate the moving of the corpse from the actual death scene (living room) to the non visible part of the bedroom ....
Knowing how long it takes to develop cadaver odour (a couple of hours) so when was he thinking the 'death' occurred then?
None of that fits in with her book. What about all the bathing and having stories read to the kids Mr Tavares de Almeida?
Therefore the only option which allows for the PJ facts and the Kate's story to remain is that there was simulation of an abduction scene as part of a simulated abduction of a victim, that subsequently went wrong.
-
Kate McCann had searched the apartment, it was empty, no one was hiding there. Kate McCann ran down to where the others were and was shouting even before she reached them, they all then rushed to 5a, what chance would anyone have had to take one of the twins? Kate McCann was in a blind panic, not thinking straight, she probably thought run and tell the others quickly.
What has kate searching the apartment got anythng to do with my post of her being scathing in her 2011 book