The 48 questions that remained unanswered

Source: Correio da Manhã, 03.08.2008, paper edition. Translation by Astro

Investigation – What the PJ inspectors wanted to know

When she became an arguida, Kate stopped talking to the inspectors

September 7, 2007. Kate McCann entered the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão in the morning and the questioning extended into the evening. She was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people were concentrated at the PJ building’s door and murmured words of mistrust regarding the couple.

On that day, CM had reported that the dogs had detected cadaver odour on Maddie’s mother’s clothes. A piece of evidence that the authorities intended to use as a trump, during a questioning that only changed course on the next day, after the PJ failed to see their doubts clarified.

Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations in a provocative manner. Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter, who meanwhile had become four, behind.

They later guaranteed that they would return if necessary – which they never did, although they were never formally requested to return – and they are no longer arguidos for the suspected involvement in concealing the child’s body. Today, CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer during the interrogation and which reflect the investigators’ doubts. More than a year after Maddie disappeared, many of these questions remain unanswered.

Jeers for the McCann couple

The day that Kate and Gerry went to the PJ’s offices in Portimão marked a turnaround in the relationship between the local people and the couple: the curious bystanders that spent the day on the street jeered at Maddie’s mother and father, mainly criticizing the “absence of visible suffering” from Kate. The foreign press also attended in great numbers.

The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer

  1. On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?
  2. Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)
  3. (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?
  4. Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?
  5. How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?
  6. Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
  7. Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.
  8. Why didn’t you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them at a later point in time?
  9. When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?
  10. What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?
  11. Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
  12. Who contacted the authorities?
  13. Who participated in the searches?
  14. Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?
  15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
  16. What does the expression “we let her down” mean?
  17. Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
  18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?
  19. During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?
  20. Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
  21. Who did you call after the facts?
  22. Did you call SKY News?
  23. Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?
  24. Did you request the presence of a priest?
  25. How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
  26. Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
  27. How did you behave that evening?
  28. Did you manage to sleep?
  29. Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
  30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
  31. Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
  32. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
  33. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
  34. Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?
  35. What is your medical specialty?
  36. Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?
  37. Did you work on a daily basis?
  38. Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?
  39. Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
  40. Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
  41. Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
  42. In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?
  43. Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?
  44. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog
  45. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?
  46. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?
  47. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?
  48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?

The question that she answered

Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”

Process becomes public tomorrow

From tomorrow onwards, the entire investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to the arguidos, to the witnesses, to the lawyers and also to the journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.

The process, which was archived on the 21st of July, will also be available to the general public, a situation that will allow for an authentic scrutiny of the work that was developed by the Polícia Judiciária. This decision, which came as a surprise due to the fact that the case involves a child, was only announced at this point in time, after the Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, requested the Portimão Court for priority in the access to the process.

Last Wednesday, the Court had requested the interested parties that had already asked for the consultation of the process to leave a CD at the secretary’s office, given the fact that the process will be supplied in a digital format.

The archiving of the investigation into the little girl’s disappearance, which happened on the 3rd of May 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the judicial secrecy, which had been extended precisely until the month of August.

425 Responses to “The 48 questions that remained unanswered”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 » Show All

  1. 251
    G1 Says:

    In response to your last message, above – yes, Chris.

  2. 252
    G1 Says:

    From the longer comment I made, two ago, regarding the original slim man with brown jacket carrying child suspect, I see the police did find the person they are nearly certain this was. That was what was meant.

    I watched the Crimewatch program again on iPlayer. With my migraine I’d missed that first time, why things didn’t make full sense to me. (Sorry)

  3. 253
    Chris Says:

    The new two suspect identity pictures (I couldn’t paste them in here for some reason)

    Tell me if I am wrong but these recollections were in the dark. I am amazed how like Gerry they are. In particular the one on the left.

    Same hair, same face shape, same eyebrows, same nose, similar eyes, neat ears etc etc.

    The guy on the right same hair, same eyebrows, similar nose etc. The face is slimmer but this was a sighting in the dark and shadows may have played a part……………

    The mind boggles

  4. 254
    G1 Says:

    I didn’t think of that, Chris, until your first comment above. Then I just went to Google.co.uk, type Gerry McCann in Google Images and was very surprised how very similar the elements you mentioned are. I thought I may have to scroll down to find very similar likenesses. I didn’t, I didn’t touch the scroll bar. I thought the photos or Mr McCann at the top of the listings were remarkably similar in those ways, and as a whole impression, especially to the photo fit which doesn’t look as if it has been cut out.

  5. 255
    G1 Says:

    I’ve read back my long comment after I first watched the program, above, 248.

    Just to explain, first time around watching the program, I also missed that the 2 E-fits published are of the same man from the single event sighting by the Smith family in the lane.

    The article I’d read before the program didn’t state that, but the program made it clear these likeness images were the old Smith family sighting. They decided to make E-Fits at last, from the family.

    It’s not news at all, thought, the sighting, it has been central to reports of the disappearance of the child for years, and known by most of the millions who have closely followed the case.

    It’s just that the E-fits are released, which the police stated had not been in the public domain before last week.

    This is the same sighting where the father of the family said he’d thought likely was Gerry McCann.
    (“I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.”)

    There was never any reportage of the other members of the family saying that they thought it wasn’t or couldn’t be Gerry McCann, as far as I’m aware. I think the rest of the family also could have eased Mr. Smith down from near certainty to a later report of 60-80% personal certainty that who Mr. Smith saw was Gerry McCann.

    One can guess this was because other members of the family, being mature and thinking things over, could not claim they knew that the person they saw was Gerry McCann or that they were sure of their sighting enough to name that person, as Mr. Smith had done. It seems that this does not mean that the rest of the family were saying, by any means, that the man they saw was not or could not be Gerry McCann. Perhaps just as much as they don’t name Mr. McCann. I think it seems, from what is known, the rest of the family just didn’t have a sighting or recollection of a sighting of enough detail or surety by which they could say that man was or wasn’t Gerry McCann.

    The thing here is that it is difficult to place Mr McCann at that place at that time, anyway. My guess is that the police aren’t taking seriously the notion that this sighting could have been of Mr. McCann for this reason.

    So I go from considering Mr. Smith’s deliberation, coupled with Chris alerting me to similarities in E-fits coming from the Smith family which I can’t fail to see, naturally, to having to wonder if the sighted person could have been Mr. Gerry McCann.

    I can’t remember the exact reported timings of everything, and now the Crimewatch show is off the BBC iPlayer, so I can’t see the new timeline. If someone can post the salient points of this, it would be interesting, to see how the police are working here, in, presumably, ruling out the sighting as being Mr McCann.

    It’s one thing for the police to do that with many interviews, we don’t know just what they know. But most people in the “don’t know” camp like myself would come from a perspective where I know such a high percentage of all solved abductions and murders of children, from historical data, involve someone known or close to the child. So, it’s from where it would be bizarre in the hypothetical realm to rule out the possibility of family and / or their friends or associates being involved. Then, of course, it only makes sense to assess what could potentially be evidence in the same direction, towards such people, rather than turn blind eyes to it.

    I know many people here seem frustrated that the police seem to be doing the opposite.

    Anyway, back to the sighting. I suppose it all depends on the timings given by the McCanns and the people they holidayed with or got friendly with. And perhaps others – were there staff / others who gave a certain time of when Mr. McCann was sighted which would make it too difficult to be sighted by the Smiths? It’s interesting to think how reliable timings can be, especially involving the Tapas Bar, when the Tapas group dined there most nights and were up and down at various times and it would be really hard, a real feat, for anyone to actually certainly remember something just from glancing at the table at one time. However, the police seem satisfied.

    You have to remember, if that could have been Mr. McCann, it seems he could not have been involved on his own. It seems too improbable. It seems to me he could only have been going to a car / boat / meet someone else, and as likely coming from a car, before he walked for a bit.

    Anyway, that’s just what has to be considered. It’s normal. The police have – they’d have to have, whether they have evidence that this could not have been Mr. McCann or just no certain evidence that it was to enable them to proceed with anything (like the Portuguese police by when the ended the case). I know, I’ve learned, the opinion of this forum so far is that they would not proceed anyway because they are not taking that scenario seriously.

    It would be interesting to check out the timeline possibilities, anyway. I guess it has been done on numerous other forums, but there’s so much to read to get to what you want to learn.

  6. 256
    Chris Says:

    Hopefully all our suspicions are wrong and the parents are squeaky clean.

    At the moment they (still) have to be the Prime Suspects.

  7. 257
    G1 Says:

    Yes. I think an open mind would help anyone.

    Also, whatever else has happened, it’s not in anyone’s own interest to allow that whatever else to prevent you from having even an open mind anyway, separately and as related, even if only in a smaller way.

    An open mind does not mean any kind of “faith”, least of all blind faith.

    With very close to two and half thousand responses from the recent publicity campaign, the police must be worked off their feet, and would be for some time to come. New leads all over the world, possibly. Spending time liaising about the possibility of truth in the leads, then going to places maybe. It’s a great deal of work, I suppose. Good things might come of it. They might not, it has been a long time. But they might.

  8. 258
    G1 Says:

    I have to say, I was struck by the similarity of Gerry McCann in some features to the photo fit image person. But, after considering it is possible, I don’t feel that man was Gerry McCann.

  9. 259
    Chris Says:

    So what do you make of this? The pictures obviously too like Gerry if you ask me!!!

    Evidence recently presented as a “breakthrough” in the hunt for Madeleine McCann was reportedly produced for her parents by a group of former spies in 2008.

    Kate and Gerry McCann hand-picked a team of former MI5 agents after becoming fed up with the pace and direction of the original Portuguese investigation.

    The intelligence report was kept secret for five years as it was deemed “hyper-critical” of the McCanns and their friends, reports the Sunday Times (27th October 2013) .

    The e-fits
    The contents were only made public after Scotland Yard investigators requested a copy when conducting a fresh review of the case

    E-fits of a man seen at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance shown on a special edition of Crimewatch last week and presented as new evidence are in fact from the 2008 report.

    Detectives also said the accepted version of events surrounding the disappearance the little girl in 2007 had “significantly changed”.

    One of the authors of the 2008 report said he was “utterly stunned” the evidence had been presented in such a way.

    Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief, who led the group, confirmed they had been silenced by the McCanns.

    He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report

  10. 260
    G1 Says:

    On the one hand, that all doesn’t sound / look good for the McCanns. On the other hand, it also is probably not unexpected behaviour by the McCanns, or by any parents whose child really had been taken by someone else against their will when they are still seeking their child and don’t need thrown around more.

    The McCanns’ behaviour from the very start can’t fail to be seen as highly suspicious by many people. That really means – very notably, very significantly strange indeed, the type of behaviour which leads people to enquire and question and suggest and not be able to help wondering, it being very natural. One of the biggest things is leaving most questions completely unanswered very soon after the child was reported missing, and seeming to draw a line between themselves and the police that would even force the police into a position of mistrust of them.

    Going back to the “other hand side”, it’s a good idea to look at all possibilities. One is that perhaps these people are not very intelligent people whatsoever. Personally they never seemed that to me, anyway. They’ve been paraded strangely as middle class icons, people from backgrounds that weren’t rich who earn a lot, socially and intellectually able people. But, apart from their double doctor (including specialist doctor) incomes, and the fact that they had their nose in the books and memorised the definitions and doses etc. given to them at medical school, perhaps they really aren’t too intelligent, normally able or socially aware at all.

    I guess it’s a good thing on this forum which is largely critical of the McCanns to sometimes bring up the other possibilities. That is that they didn’t have a clue what to do soon after Madeleine was reported missing, and they in fact were suffering very, very public but really unidentified total nervous breakdowns.

    ….

    Anyway, that side of the events, that possibility rather, shouldn’t be disregarded, otherwise people are just not being balanced.

    At the moment, while I don’t know, I don’t think the man who the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann. I don’t know, but now the idea that there was an actual abduction, not by the McCanns, seems something serious to me. (Unfortunately, though, I am unable still to weed out my thoughts from before that wonder if the McCanns were involved. It’s a very old suggestion, including selling their daughter because they simply could not cope with her – this even fits in with the unintelligent, practically incapable notion above. Or people have made guesses that Madeleine was beginning to speak of things from her short past that would have some people in tricky positions.)

    These thoughts go to show there are a lot of possibilities. It’s really healthy to be aware of this, for one thing so that whoever carried whatever out isn’t pinning you down to be obsessed with something you can’t know (whatever it is). What is very clear is that there were grossly evil, sick people at work in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    I can’t say why, but at the moment, to me, it seems at least a very valid theory that the young child was kidnapped or murdered by an intruder who had planned a lot. This shouldn’t be dismissed, honestly. I feel it’s very serious indeed. (Again, though, especially in a flat with unlocked doors, it doesn’t mean that no-one else was somehow involved, even if against their wills, but having been shut up.)

  11. 261
    Chris Says:

    do hope this site is not being got at.
    Where are “Tayto the Crisp” two post? They have been emailed to me.

    As I have said before my father was a doctor.
    He was a man of principle. He was a Major in WW2 with the Army in India. He turned down being promoted to Brigadier because of what it involved. He would never discuss why but mention latrines as one of the duties.
    He also refused becoming a Mason. Full of people with little ability but clout.
    The amount of money being thrown at this case stinks of the Masons.

  12. 262
    G1 Says:

    “do hope this site is not being got at.
    Where are “Tayto the Crisp” two post? They have been emailed to me.”
    (Chris)

    There’s one anyway at comment 205 (page 5), Chris, on this machine at least.

    What’s going on? Someone is emailing you posts? Is that one of the site admins, did you ask where the posts were, or something?

    I’m not a member of this site, it has been closed to new members for years, or it was only ever open to those who write articles, or maybe some others also. I don’t know who can see your emails – people coming to the site in recent years, like me, can’t, I think.

  13. 263
    G1 Says:

    … I meant – can see your email address. Only registered members, or maybe just a few site admins can.

  14. 264
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    I just get notified if a post is made on the site with the contents. So obviously it has my email address which I have to decalre each time I post.So I know you posted twice recently and apparently so did Tayto the Crisp.

    This is one of them…. I’ll take a look

    Post 209, Mum
    You’ve nailed it exactly. The disturbing thing is that they have got the support of some high level people within the Government and also the BBC. Someone high up in our establishment is guiding this, I just hope there is enough revulsion in the international community to vilify their actions

  15. 265
    G1 Says:

    I understand about the emails.

    I didn’t get emails about “Tayto” posting this time.

    However, the same thing has happened to me in the past.

    Sometimes my posts say “awaiting moderation” (sometimes they don’t then get published).

    In the past, I’ve actually got an email alerting me to someone else’s new comment, which I’ve then replied to, as I thought it was awaiting the moderator’s click for it to appear. But it never did.

    So, there is at least one reply somewhere in these comments to a post I got emailed about but which never appeared.

    I guess it’s that the moderator doesn’t click it in. But I don’t think this is necessarily because the admin decides that – it may “time out” because the admin is returning to the site at times only to keep it ticking over, and comments awaiting a click may disappear from the system before that.

  16. 266
    G1 Says:

    … (A guess).

  17. 267
    G1 Says:

    “He also refused becoming a Mason. Full of people with little ability but clout.
    The amount of money being thrown at this case stinks of the Masons.”

    (Chris)

    I see the relevance in what you’re suggesting.

    Dipping over onto the side of questioning the McCanns’ again, their whole public appearances over a long time can be seen to be a kind of exercise of control and perceivable daringness, in itself.

    I can’t shake this off.

    Maybe it’s just unfortunate that their behaviour leads that to be seen in them, and more unfortunate that it’s discussed as relevant to anything. Maybe not.

    Everything with them is so, so odd, though. As I wrote above, without really thinking about it, they really did seem to very much force the Portuguese police to treat them the way they were treated. Everything seemed brought upon themselves, meaning exactly that the McCanns were in a position then whereby it could be seen objectively that they could feel it legitimate that they ought to “get out” and, at least for some years, distance themselves from the Portuguese investigation.

    If this were a couple of real, serious nervous breakdowns – not unlikely for parents in the circumstances – you can only conclude that those people helping the McCanns, particularly Clarence Mitchell – people with a lot of responsibility, could indeed have been seriously negligent indeed. How did he deal with, for example, the Portuguese police situation? By allowing them to be demonised further. It fits in with the “breakdown and escape from hostile surroundings” scenario that came about, further. Unfortunate. But it was more than unfortunate. For someone with such very serious responsibility, it was more than strange. Easily I could guess it could be negligent. What did he think he was doing, unless he was just a puppet?

    It’s the land of nothing making sense.

    However, I really don’t want to distract your attention from that it seems to me now (involvement of McCanns somehow or not), Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a gang involved in organised child trafficking / prostitution.

  18. 268
    Chris Says:

    Tayto the Crisp has to be our friend Spud. I do like his sense of humour.

    GI:-
    “However, I really don’t want to distract your attention from that it seems to me now (involvement of McCanns somehow or not), Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a gang involved in organised child trafficking / prostitution.”

    I don’t buy that.

    All the evidence says she died in the apartment. When exactly is a very interesting question.

    As a smart person pointed out an anagram of Maddie is “I’m dead”.

  19. 269
    G1 Says:

    “All the evidence says she died in the apartment. When exactly is a very interesting question.”

    (Chris)

    Thanks for your comment, Chris. I didn’t at all believe what I’ve written there above in the past, and felt that much more persuaded to go with what you think. But here I want to take what you’ve said. If we’re going to make deductions, let’s be methodical.

    The evidence you mention seems to be cadaver scent and human blood specks. Is there any more than that, Chris?

    It is far from flimsy evidence to me. I do not discount it.

    However:

    1. If Madeleine died on May 3 2007, or on a day before then, in the apartment, evidence pointing to that does not mean in itself that the McCanns were the ones who caused the girl’s death. Consider this, McCanns were seen leaving apartment at 8.30. Someone(s) entered then. Whyever it happened, Madeleine was killed. The intruder put the corpse in the cupboard. Crucially, through the following checks until the alarm was raised around 10 p.m., the family claim Madeleine (or her corpse) was not herself seen again, ever.

    Possibility: intruder returned for Madeleine’s corpse later, wanting to take evidence. OR, the intruder remained hidden in the apartment for a longer time. Is around 1 hour thirty minutes long enough for Cadaver to become present? I don’t know, I think so. I think 1 hour may be long enough. What is the significance of an enclosed space – a wardrobe – that even light cadaver would transfer to and linger on the materials sooner? The possibility that an intruder was still hiding in the apartment during Gerry’s check was suggested by himself, also.

    However, while this line of thought shows that cadaver and blood, even if from Madeleine’s corpse, does not prove a link to the death of Madeleine with blame attatched to the McCanns, it also conveniently can fit with something that the parents could want to present if they had blame. Why didn’t Gerry look at his children when making a so-called “check”? This may be very, very important. What kind of a “check” is that? Why did he bother? Especially considering the doors were not locked. Why just check for no noise? What if a child has fallen and hit its head, unconscious? What does he really think he’s actually checking for? What does he think it means? Why was that done, as said, if it was? Could this “check” have been planned by Gerry, not looking at the children, in order that the suggestion of a dead body with increasing cadaver scent in the cupboard could potentially explain away the scent if it were found? Or did Gerry meet someone in the apartment who he expected to be there or was not so surprised to find there? Or at least, did he just not check all of his children were actually there and safe, during his “check”, for a planned reason?

    This is really important, I feel. Just as important, at least as the other points in possibilities I’m mentioning here, for perhaps it’s within some of the strangest occurences of the time. I’m suggesting the cadaver and blood evidence might be explained without the McCanns in the picture, but this strange part does stick out.

    2. It has been suggested that both cadaver and blood (possibly from the full corpse) came from after May 3. It has been suggested that it could have been planted. It could have been.

    3. I feel this is important and not to be sniffed at. There had been break-ins to these appartments (as far as I remember including 5A and the one above) before the week of the disappearance, and no signs of break-ins mostly. I have read it had been concluded publicly, before, it was likely that either A. Ocean Club staff member / member(s) were complicit in letting criminals enter flats; and / or B. Keys were stolen from reception for enough time to get copies made (even in Faro perhaps, even with a gang’s own key reproducers). As far as I remember (and, though it’s years ago, I searched and read all I could about this) these were the only two possibilities, beyond criminals with poltergeist abilities also. Could some of these appartments, including 5A, have been used when unlet, without being lit inside, by a trafficking paedophile group involved in child abduction, selling sex and more?

    I say this, for one reason, because I feel strongly that a gang of criminals involved in “professional”, commercial paedophilia – children for monsters – are very likely to have abducted Madeleine McCann. I’m not saying this is, but also I’m certainly not now saying this isn’t, something that could have involved the parents of Madeleine McCann. Somehow. Or that they have hidden knowledge.

    If the McCanns were somehow involved in this, then, as I’ve always said it must have involved more than them, and they are playing fools among other things.

  20. 270
    G1 Says:

    Back to more strangeness, however, and putting what I’ve said I think to be very likely, about a gang abduction / murder, aside.

    The Telegraph are publishing an old article they did from 2010, because of the libel trial in Portugal against Mr. Amaral surfacing once more, now.

    It highlights that it’s not a recent thing that the McCanns were never going to be considered as suspects in a British enquiry, despite the statistical link to relatives and close people in such cases. (After Chris’s letter from the British authorities claiming that the McCanns are somehow exonerated from even suspicion, if there can be even such an actual state of meaning logically.)

    It goes back to 2007-08, and importantly, can only be viewed as something critical in bringing about a situation whereby someone is able to say that these people are, whatever it means, exonerated from suspicion. It must have happened very quickly:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

    Very, very strange.

    Then, again, you have to wonder if the Met Police take anything like this seriously, at all.

    I posted this link in a comment to a different article in this site recently, about the police’s approach to the Jill Dando murder. See bottom. (I hope it is reliable. But I’ve read it before, elsewhere, but longer ago than this. I remember wondering if the Met Police would come around to questioning Mr Lindsey again soon. Years later, no.)

    This news comes a long time after they had falsely convicted the sensitive man with emotional and behavioural difficulties, Barry George, but has lead to nothing.

    Remember that policemen involved in the Jill Dando murder investigation have since been involved in Operation Grange, including the head detective of Operation Grange.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-murder-witness-comes-2071046

    So what’s going on?

    With what I quote above from 2007-08, bringing about a state of affairs where someones think they are able to claim the McCanns are exonerated from suspicion?

    With the false conviction of Barry George, and complete disinterest in the best evidence of the real murderer of Jill Dando?

    What’s going on?

    With the first situation, involving the McCanns, it can seem that the British police know something – whatever it is – and therefore have made a decision from there. There seems no other way of truly explaining such very abnormal police work.

    “We’re going to exclude you as suspects because parents never hurt their children without exception and we feel very sorry for you. Despite the high statistics in these kind of cases.” Is that it? Or what else is it?

  21. 271
    G1 Says:

    ***
    ***

    I meant to include the relevant, short paragraph from the Telegraph article.

    This should be before the first link in the comment above … :

    “Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said. “

  22. 272
    G1 Says:

    Quickly – the “checks” part.

    People talked about this a long time ago, but I haven’t read much about it lately.

    Simply, it is so strange. It has to be questioned.

    This is a simple truth:

    It is one thing to be in the same flat or even multi-story house as children being minded and go to check upon them every so often, only looking in the door to see if they seem to have gotten up, or even just listening at the door.

    This is because you have been listening to noises in the property, and would have been aware if there seemed a reason to be more enquiring.

    But why on earth would anyone do this who has left the property and gone out completely (especially leaving the doors unlocked)?

    To make a listening check, after having been out for a meal a considerable distance away?

    Both Gerry McCann, and Matthew Oldfield.

    Unquestioned by police.

    If these people can be just innocent victims of child abductors, with nothing more complex at all, it leaves serious worry. Not just of neglect, but of mental illness, if they seriously contend there was checking going on.

    There were no checks. Obviously. A girl who it was claimed was there at the beginning of the evening, is missing for over 6 years.

    Meanwhile, Tony Bennett, a trained solicitor who worked in social care, has been sued for questioning the legality of this and other things. And subsequently silenced from proceeding with his natural right to appeal the strange decision of Judge Tugendhat.

    Ruthless? I’d guess most dictionary defintions don’t suggest the word means anything as scary, determined or efficient as this, were it to have all been effected by will. It all was effected by will somehow, by people recently claiming on TV to have done “nothing wrong”.

  23. 273
    Chris Says:

    GI

    You say:-

    The evidence you mention seems to be cadaver scent and human blood specks. Is there any more than that, Chris?

    I think we should start making a list of questions we need the McCanns to answer.

    Just a couple for starters

    1. Why did Kate call out she has been abducted? A normal mother would be screeming out the childs name and look for her. I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.

    2. Why did Kate not search for her daughter? Did she know it was pointless?

    2. Why were the telephone records all deleted?

    3. Why did Kate wash the cuddly toy? That is the last thing any normal mother would do.

    4. Why did Kate say ‘ask the dogs’?

    Liz I need some help please but this is going to be a long list. I can cut and paste your questions into the list. btw Hope you are well.

  24. 274
    G1 Says:

    That’s why I’m so confused and have been for years and years now, Chris.

    Your 4 questions, indeed, turn out to be just a drop in the ocean.

    As I was suggesting in comments 260 and especially 267, above – it’s the biggest mystery why so much simply hasn’t been simply answered. As you say in your comment above. It’s even a deeper mystery in itself. The McCanns establish a huge fund of money. Why could they not hire the best psychologists and proper P.R. and communications consultants to properly take care of them and just sort things out? Instead of the highest charging solicitors in extradition law, and libel law, and so on, targeting genuine, concerned people such as Tony Bennett. Why not simply explain and accept natural criticism, rather than the crusades we’ve seen? Because they’re still suffering ongoing nervous breakdowns? Why aren’t there professionals there helping them, explaining that to the public? Instead of all that money going to absurd detective companies who end up breaking the law, or a police man who just had his professional opinion, but could never prosecute anyway.

    I do think it is likely Madeleine McCann was taken by a “professional” gang, whether taken living or dead.

    I have not ruled out the McCanns’ involvement, of course because the “Ocean” I refer to above just won’t let me, whatever I try. I’d love to, though.

    As you said, above, “Hopefully all our suspicions are wrong and the parents are squeaky clean.”

    For the physical acts of what happened to Madeleine, you also said, “At the moment the [McCanns] … (still) have to be the Prime Suspects.” I did mostly agree with you until recently. I can’t say why at the moment, but there are very good reasons. I’d hope to say later. What I suspect has changed to something solid, as described.

    But the physical acts of what happened to Madeleine McCann are only the physical acts of what happened, and may not be everything. Again, because of the “ocean” of something more strange than very strangeness, it is really hard to think this is a simple affair of abduction, whatever went on.

    I’ve thought it’s also possible the McCanns do know about what happened, did nothing to involve themselves, but can’t speak out because of what would happen.

    If there is a professional sourcing gang of peadophiles, known in Europe, you can be quite sure they’re well known among certain circles in the UK and feature in personal phone books. Don’t forget the Savile parties with bus loads of underage children driven in, girls and boys, for underage rape and abuse by many people in country houses and other locations. We know that of Savile because he was famous and it came out in the end. How much else does this happen with faces that children don’t know to identify? Look at Kincora in Belfast – just an old one where people can’t raise doubt about because it’s known to have happened – bus loads of children taken from that boys home, with other bus loads of other children, driven to parties and weekends for men to take advantage of. And so on. And so on. There are many other instances of this kind of thing hidden.

  25. 275
    G1 Says:

    Here’s a go at your five questions, I think from a bit of a different perspective to yours, Chris.

    – – – “1. Why did Kate call out she has been abducted? A normal mother would be screeming out the childs name and look for her. I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.”

    … Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    – – – “2. Why did Kate not search for her daughter? Did she know it was pointless? ”

    Again, this would be answered by what I’ve said above.

    – – – ” Why were the telephone records all deleted?”

    Even moreso, where people, perhaps including well known people, may have ordered that young Madeleine must be taken because of what she knows, with the McCanns knowledge at least, deleted call records would be very significant. Especially if the police turn the blindest eye possible to this, yet search all other phone records in Praia da Luz.

    – – – “Why did Kate wash the cuddly toy? That is the last thing any normal mother would do.”

    Under instructions? Or someone else made sure of it?

    – – – “Why did Kate say ‘ask the dogs’?”

    Because the dogs are able to say more than the McCanns can say? Perhaps they want to be able to say more than they can? Because they are stressing they are the dogs – they are describing that the dogs, who can only bark incomprehsively rather than speak real words, are indeed being asked at that moment.

  26. 276
    Chris Says:

    My list is getting longer

    I don’t buy the abduction theory sorry–

    1. Why did Kate call out she has been abducted? A normal mother would be screeming out the childs name and look for her. I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.

    2. Why did Kate not search for her daughter? Did she know it was pointless?

    3. Why were the telephone records all deleted?

    4. Why did Kate wash the cuddly toy? That is the last thing any normal mother would do.

    5 Why did Kate say ‘ask the dogs’?

    6: Why lie about the apartment being locked when the patio doors had been left unlocked?

    7: Why didn’t the McCanns join in the search for Madeleine instead of playing tennis & updating blogs?

    8: Why lie about the shutters being forced open when the forensics proved they had not?

    9: Why phone the Sun newspaper before phoning the Portuguese police?

    10: Why did Gerry return to the UK for a day so soon after the event?

    11: Why hasn’t Gerry’s holdall ever been found? ( a man with a similar holdall who looked like Gerry was seen on the beach).

    12: Why didn’t Kate insist on answering 48 simple questions that anyone of us could have answered with ease? Most would have answered them even if the lawyer had said not to.

    13: Why did the McCanns include Dr David Payne (reported to the police by two other UK doctors as a suspected paedophile) in their group & allow him access to Madeleine?

    14: The McCanns maintain that the dead body scent picked up by the sniffer dogs was the result of Kate having dealt with several dead bodies immediately before the holiday.
    Why would a Kate,from a family with a combined income of over £100,000+ pa, need to take her work clothes on holiday?

    15: The McCanns maintain that DNA with a partial match to Madeleine found in their hire car which wasn’t hired till 25 days after she disappeared, got their from nappies belonging to her siblings. How many of you put unwrapped used nappies in the back of your car?

    More to follow – thanks to the posts above

  27. 277
    Chris Says:

    GI

    No offense I think you need a doctor

    You say:-

    Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    Then why the HELL leave the child alone!!

  28. 278
    G1 Says:

    “No offense I think you need a doctor.”

    There is no need to insult me, Chris, because there is an aspect (or more) of what you publish you believe which I do not agree with anymore. For some reason you feel the need personally to say I need a doctor, when I’m being as methodical as possible in dealing with what everyone is only guessing and wondering about.

    Does that really offend you so much? You seem to think that you know, and can rule out another’s suppositions and seem to attempt to prevent their discussion. You say I need a doctor, but it’s your controlling attitude which is unhealthy, especially where it seems you need someone to agree with you.

    Did you really mean, the “no offense” part, Chris?


    I quote Chris, below, from comment 277:

    “You say:-

    Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    Then why the HELL leave the child alone!!”

    OK, this was not so clear. Threatened may not be the best word. I only meant that the McCanns might have been told this would happen, but they were still not sure it would happen. The doors might conceivably have been open anyway, as could have been directed to the McCanns, as part of former relations and goings on.

    Everything I’ve considered does make complete practical and logical sense, Chris. But they’re only suppositions, here. If you know better than suppositions and working things out logically, practically, it would be good to know about it.

  29. 279
    G1 Says:

    I completely agree, Chris, that making a list of questions from within the ocean of very strange, unanswered areas is a very good idea. These are the old questions thousands and thousands of people have been asking online (and off) in many online locations for years, and it is good to group them together. (Most forums which are not actively pro the McCanns are much more detailed and searching that this one, with very knowledgable people).

    But, I can’t think of a point of asking all the questions again if you’re not willing to allow rational discussion that isn’t pre-formed, and insult peoples’ personal thoughts and deductions.

  30. 280
    G1 Says:

    Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything, Chris.

    For example, you say,

    ” I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.” ”

    It may easily be one of the more likely explanations, and the one I thought of most for a long time. And I’m certainly not discounting it now.

  31. 281
    Chris Says:

    GI

    “No offense I think you need a doctor.”

    There is no need to insult me, Chris

    Come on where is your sense of humour? It was tongue in cheek/joke (as per Spud) I should have added make an appointment with the McCanns!

    The big joke in this is the £10m + of public money being wasted on it.

    As I have said my father was a doctor. Nobody would have told him what to do or tell him to leave his kids alone.

    I’m off to bed – will add to the list tomorrow.

  32. 282
    G1 Says:

    I see. You say you make a joke. That’s up to you. whether you really do or not.

    I don’t post here on such an extremely serious thing to get involved in joking about this in any way.

    I really, really don’t. I’m not going to bother bringing up appropriacy. Again, it’s just up to you, your business. But, so that you know, if indeed you could have been joking then (I’ve never seen one before on this whole site, or many others about this topic, while you claim the person calling himself Tayto was making “humour”), please don’t include me in them.

  33. 283
    G1 Says:

    I came back to this site after deciding not to post anymore, quite a while ago. (Though I returned to respond to the extremely weird Judge Tugendhat cases – Tony Bennett and Sally Bercow, and the McCanns manipulation of Mr Bennett after that while reducing the money he owed by a huge amount.)

    So, I returned in the new spate of news, and also have changed a material opinion of what I think happened, in physical acts alone at least. But I’ve said a lot, and don’t have much more to say for a while, I think.

    But before that, I want to ask you, Chruis, what on earth this means:

    “As I have said my father was a doctor. Nobody would have told him what to do or tell him to leave his kids alone.”

    What has it got to do with the subject of this site?

  34. 284
    Chris Says:

    You (GI) said above:-

    Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    So you are saying that Maddie knew something and her parents let her be abducted!!

    I am saying:-

    “As I have said my father was a doctor. Nobody would have told him what to do or tell him to leave his kids alone.”

    You say:-

    What has it got to do with the subject of this site?

    I say{-

    I thought the McCanns were doctors of medicine. Exactly the same circle as my father and if so ordering doctors about is fantasy. Beside they have had 4 years to say all this and answer the 48 questions. Instead they write books and say nothing.

    With regard to the British Government and the £10m+ I see that as Cameron hoping to gain some political points. If the crime is solved he has to win if not he has little if anything to lose it’s taxpayers money.

  35. 285
    G1 Says:

    Ok, Chris. Why I was asking, why I didn’t understand what you were trying to say, is because, you know, whatever happened, the point is that the McCanns aren’t anyone else. The point is that this is very specific.

    I didn’t know why you were mentioning your parents to compare to the McCanns. Or indeed, mentioning doctors anyway. Sure, doctors are supposed to help people.

    But it’s a bit simple to say of all human nature, to think that all people operate in an ideal way, and so make value judgements from that people are doctors, for example.

    I’m not just saying there are exceptions, some bad apples. I’m saying, actually, helping people is often enough not the impetus for a significant amount of people to go into being a doctor. The same with being a teacher. The same with being a lawyer. The same with being a policeman or politician. The same with being a surgery receptionist.

    There are people who identify positions with personal social status, opportunities for personal control and to gain respect and, of course, the kind of respect (whatever it is, respect may be the wrong term) that having a good deal of money deals among some people. This is really not uncommon amongst high earners. Sure, there are loads of people who earn a few hundred thousand per year or more between the couple, or each, who are lovely people, very caring in whatever they do and in life. But also, there are really significant elements of society – every society – who make a beeline, not for “the good life” (which there’s nothing wrong with in itself), but for a life of extravagance and social status, to mark themselves out. They see what they think is perceived positions in society suitably becoming to their character and person, which others should not have. Many of these people do not care at all about people.

    I understand what you were suggesting, I think, Chris. That doctors ought not to be like that, and more often, probably it’s quite true at least.

    But, again, in every case that makes high profile news, we’re not talking about most cases at all. The point is that this isn’t about your parents, who you can vouch for. The point is we don’t know who this is about, and are wondering, through all the immense strangeness we find.

    My more recent point, that you didn’t understand, is actually putting what I’ve mentioned with another side of society.

    I mean putting the more seedy side of the kind of well off society I described – well off to very moneyed people who want to control and don’t care about others and get involved in illegal activity – with the seedy, illegal side of people not typically used to high incomes. (Here I was meaning a gang of child abductors, involved in trafficking of children for sex).

    Then I was also wondering if or how the McCanns might conceivably be involved. Wondering, guessing, deducing, estimating, wondering again. That’s all.

    In parts of Europe trafficking of children, sometimes including children of very young ages, is big, big business, with hundreds to thousands of children involved.

    You don’t buy the child abduction theory (with or without the McCanns involvement?). And I don’t buy that at all that the McCanns accidentally allowed Madeleine to die, a pure accident, and spent the next 6 years covering this up every day in bigger and bigger ways.

    There are many who suggest an accident, including Amaral, but that is the most ridiculous thing attributable to normal, well, mature, professional doctors I can think of. An accident is just an accident. Basic, honest, negligence can be covered up by doctors and a group of willing friends much easier than cooking up the huge 6 year story after an accident.

    Therefore, it seems to me, if the McCanns had some kind of blame or knowledge in what happened to Madeleine, it must involve something very serious indeed, involving other people. What reason would normal people have just to kill off their 3 year old daughter?

  36. 286
    G1 Says:

    … Or be part of having her abducted?

    … Or be submissive in not saying what they know about people who warned them their daughter would be taken?

    Nearly the only possibility seems to me if they had been part of something really serious and significantly wider.

    (Excepting the possibility that they weren’t able people at all, just could not cope with Madeleine, were going quite mad, and arranged for her to be kind of adopted, illegally. But again, the unstopping police and press presence could never be detatched from that. So it also seems a really unlikely choice for people who were having difficulty coping. To change their lives so incredibly for it.)

    Whatever happened, if the McCanns were in any way knowingly involved in the disappearance of their daughter, they would have been very aware that their lives were going to change incredibly and that there was no going back ever. It suggests something really, really serious rather than something like an itch Gerry or Kate had been developing against keeping their daughter.

    Then there is the context, with certain portions of society providing such unquestioning, unsual help, but when the circumstances with the parents are far, far stanger than with most missing children incidents.

  37. 287
    G1 Says:

    “ordering doctors about is fantasy.”

    What does this mean, Chris?

    Everyone is different.

    You seem to think that a couple of doctors could somehow have been responsible for the death of their 3 year old daughter in a holiday flat and covering it up, lying to the world and police for years. But that they’d never act with or under other people in a wider affair.

    One thing to say, also, which I suggested above, is that a possibility that the McCanns have been silenced against their will, or by a kind of blackmail. There may be evidence against them. They may willingly be in a satanic group.

    I suppose you may find the latter far fetched or absurd or something, Chris, but it does happen.

    Look at the fragments of what’s probably a huge story about Savile which have come out (as indeed the head detective described things, fragments of something huger) – involving satanic rituals and ritual sexual abuse of children.

    It’s far from irrelevant to consider this as possibly relevant. There is a missing 3 year old girl, there has been for over 6 years. The whole situation is extremely strange indeed.

  38. 288
    G1 Says:

    Chris, I didn’t mean to be insulting or cold about your making a joke, above. It’s just that it’s not for me, in this, that’s all.

  39. 289
    Chris Says:

    GI

    I’ll pick you up on these points

    “There are many who suggest an accident, including Amaral, but that is the most ridiculous thing attributable to normal, well, mature, professional doctors I can think of. An accident is just an accident. Basic, honest, negligence can be covered up by doctors and a group of willing friends much easier than cooking up the huge 6 year story after an accident.”

    The McCanns as doctors, had ‘free’ access to drugs just like some criminals have access to guns. They had the tools for an accident. You also say they are ‘normal, well, mature, professional doctors’. Their behavour says that is very questionable.

    ‘Cooking up the huge 6 year story’.

    Then answer the questions which is what this column is all about.

  40. 290
    G1 Says:

    “Then answer the questions which is what this column is all about.”

    Chris, once again, just because I don’t agree 100% with that what are only some of your suggestions are known to be the ultimate truth, you ought to consider there is no need to be so aggressive.

    If you’ve read what I’ve written above, you’ll see my WHOLE point of view, WHOLE approach is making absolutely clear that no-one can answer those questions, Chris.

    However, again, I make deductions, theories, estimations, guesses. I’m happy just to do that, as a normal person, and not be some kind of psychic superman who knows his rightness, in fact.

    —-

    ‘Cooking up the huge 6 year story’.

    This is so important. What I was saying is that, if there was an accident, the McCanns would be ABSOLUTELY aware of the MASSIVE lifetime choice they’d be making in faking an abduction. To prison or new lives outside of prison, lying all the time, getting worse and more complex all the time. Suddenly.

    If there was an accident, just an honest accident, they were, just hours or minutes beforehand – fine, upstanding, reasonable, sensible, caring, loving (while maybe stressed) doctors and parents.

    Everyone makes mistakes, Chris. Accidents happen to children every day. And children die from them. It’s actually totally natural.

    Yes, I’m saying “cooking up a 6 year” etc. story including the books, media appearances, funds – from what were minutes before an accident – reasonable, rational, loving, caring, upstanding, honest, probably sensitive, law fearing citizens – is just MASSIVE. Massive. Massive. Massive.

    The only possibility I can think of, in such an eventuality of an accident, is that these people would have been two of nearly the most nervous people conceivable. They would have been the most highly strung people, ready for breakdown in personal and professional lives (which they partly abandoned to lie full time for years after honest accident), and shattered instantly.

    It’s just so, so far from what normal people would do after an accident.

    The difference between before such an “accident” and after could be so utterly, utterly VAST. Immense. Can such esteemed, balanced professionals just crack like that as if they never had a life or sense of rationality developed over decades before then? When what they’d have done was hardly even their fault?

    To me, it would seem only to mean in April 2007, these were dormant utter psychopaths, waiting to explode.

    Normal people are nothing like this.

    Doctors, typically, are nothing, whatsoever like this.

    What I was also saying is, given their profession, contacts and experience and that they could rely on support in their group, it would be A MILLION TIMES easier to concoct an accidental story leaving out any negligence – than the absurdist story including abduction.

    Easily, all they had to do was say something like, we left the tablets in the bathroom, out of Madeleine’s reach, but she must have got a stool. Or, “We’re sorry, they must have just been in her reach. We didn’t think she’d ever do that. We warned her.” End of story. Maybe they would get some light reprimand, but it wouldn’t be very much.

    No, instead of that, if there was an accident, we have propounding lie upon lie. In the first few months – hour after hour, day after day and so on. Then documentaries they participated in, books, websites, you name it.

    —-

    “They had the tools for an accident.”

    I think you’re confused, Chris.

    Accidents don’t require “tools”. There can’t even be “tools” to accidents. Tools are only ever 100% purposive.

    Once again, Chris, unfortunately I can’t “answer the questions which is what this column is all about.”

    I can only make theories.

    Your theories are very valid, Chris. I don’t know if mine were or weren’t what happened.

    But, if you don’t want your theories to be scrutinised at all, why publish them in an open, public forum.

  41. 291
    G1 Says:

    “You also say they are ‘normal, well, mature, professional doctors’. Their behavour says that is very questionable.”

    (Chris)

    Not at all, Chris. You haven’t understood.

    What I was saying was that it would be a very strange thing for anyone at all to create an absurd story for life involving a false abduction.

    Particularly, it would be a very strange thing for well, mature professional doctors, suddenly, after an accident.

    What I was saying was that anyone who would have done that is likely to have been seriously mentally ill, ready to crack, before such an “accident”.

    I don’t know of evidence that these people were really, really unstable people before the disappearance of their daughter.

    Your accident suggestion suggests the co-incidence of two very, very unprobable circumstances in themselves coming together to form a single extremely unprobable circumstance:

    1. Doctors who deal with lots of illness every day and are used to theoretically, abstractly treating unfortunate human states and coping well. They have had training in coping with the worst things in life, as routine. But these ones were highly nervous, probably mentally ill and only just able to cope, but ready to crack. They would lose their rationality easily, despite their professional experience. (For to invent the abduction theory after an accident would b a massive, profound loss of rationality). They would be unable to deal with the fact that, honestly, bad things just happen to people naturally, every day, despite being trained about this and dealing with it every day in their working lives.

    together with

    2. While accidents do happen to children, they are very rare. But Madeleine died by accidental death in the apartment.

    Again, the main thing about this is that the McCanns would have no trouble covering up any part of negligence they might have had (see my last comment), if they wanted to. Rather than creating a completely irrational and absurd story for life.

  42. 292
    G1 Says:

    I wrote:

    “I don’t know of evidence that these people were really, really unstable people before the disappearance of their daughter.”

    The only thing I’ve ever read that might have some relevance in that respect is a report that a relative was reported to have said that Kate couldn’t cope with Madeleine one time before the holiday.

    1. This is amongst a heap of unverified claims which arose in the early parts of the Portuguse investigations in the newspapers, mostly the sensationalist, unreliable papers.

    2. How many mothers or fathers say at least once or numerous times to a relative or friend, “Can you mind my son / daughter for the afternoon. I’m so tired and just can’t cope at the moment.”? A third? A half? More than a half? Probably most.

    Being balanced (and I guess Chris may fly off the handle at me being so balanced and abstract), after the child goes missing, it’s a different story altogether.

    Actual nervous breakdowns from people who’ve had their child abducted suddenly may be expected.

    Indeed, while it’s still very strange, it is actually possible that there can be explanations for much of the McCann’s behaviour after the disappearance of Madeleine.

    I don’t want to shut out proper consideration and say that point is not true.

    I’m not making arguments to back up something emotional I might have originally felt. I don’t want to do that.

    Rational men and women don’t do that.

    Arguments that are not made seeing everything, weighing up all sides, are simply not worthwhile.

    Which means also that, despite my theory that accidental death of Madeleine is by far the most unlikely possibility – it’s still a possibility.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible (Chris).

  43. 293
    Chris Says:

    You say hiding the ‘truth about the lie’ would be massive.

    The humongous likely consequences of telling the truth.:-

    1. Struck of as doctors.

    2. Likely prison terms.

    3. Their other kids put into care.

    4. Unable to profit from their books etc etc

    I suggest you read this book for FREE. http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/

    You will also find the odd video of Gerry showing what a lovely person he is.

    Tell me one other thing, why didn’t they appear on TV in front of the press,like other normal parents of missing children, beg everyone for help, and more important answer all questions put to them without. Walking out not acceptable?

    Apparently they only miss Maddie at birthdays and Christmas if you watched them on Crimewatch!

    If they are innocent except of neglect they have the most odd way of going about it.

  44. 294
    G1 Says:

    “You say hiding the ‘truth about the lie’ would be massive.

    The humongous likely consequences of telling the truth.:-

    … etc.”

    (Chris)

    Nonsense, Chris.

    After a mere “accident”? Earlier you alleged that accidents have “tools”. I think you need to check a dictionary, basically.

    As I said, what’s mostly likely would be a light reprimand.

    Chris, when do people get prison terms after accidents which can happen to anyone? Even negligence is a civil matter, nothing to do with prison. It would not be professional and would be unlikely to seriously affect the parents’ professional lives. As far as leaving the children and checking a few times an hour, British social services have no problem with this, even when the child is gone. I don’t agree with that personally – but it seriously suggests that there would not be much of a problem at all if a simple accident had been known.

    I can’t make any sense of what you’re writing about.


    However, once again, I’ll bring up a really simple, clear fact that will never go away and will always for me throw out the accident theory as being so unlikely.

    If the child Madeleine did indeed happen to die in a sad, unfortunate accident, and the parents were suddenly, irrationally frightened and wished to hide it, why did they not simply make a story that easily covered up the parents’ potential negligence?

    We would never even know about a dead child, probably. A child was irritated one night as her parents dined outside, making regular checks, and the girl opened the sleeping pills and overdosed. Or fell on her head in a way that killed her. These things happens. There’s no real blame in those circumstances. That’s life. Doctors know this very well. Doctors also know, if there could have been some blame, to easily make a story without blame, if needed.

    Doctors such as they would be easily believed at the drop of a hat, in an issue which doesn’t seem to involve crime. If there was a bit of negligence from the parents, making it a simple domestic story which didn’t tie them to negligence would have been the simplest thing possible.

    No newspapers would have reported this, most likely. We’d never know that Madeleine McCann is not around.

    The fact is, Chris, only a megalomaniac or a couple of them, real out and out psychopaths, would instead suddenly eradicate their child’s body with immense determination. Given the choice of easily hiding any negligence in an accident involving their much loved daughter, and instead telling the world she was stolen, is an incredible possibility to me. It’s absolutely stark raving mad.

    They would be doing this, knowing 100% that the all of the British media, Portuguese media, and probably beyond would descend upon them. AND THAT THIS MEDIA WOULD STAY WITH THEM, GETTING MORE HEATED AND MORE HEATED, because the girl WOULD NEVER BE FOUND, COULD NEVER BE FOUND. Any fool would know that. Doctors, certainly, would know that.

    Their decision would only be known to involve having to lie about an absurd story in increasingly more complex ways for the rest of their natural lives. Instead of hiding a little bit of unintended negligence over their much loved daughter.

    Possible, of course. Anything’s possible in circumstances you are guessing about.

    But to me just highly, highly, highly unrealistic indeed.

    “I suggest you read this book for FREE. http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk

    Good to let other readers known about this, Chris.

    Though if you’ve read my previous comments, you’d know I’ve read Mr Amaral’s book numerous times, and I feel it’s a simple book. There is throught provoking stuff in there. But why would an intelligent policeman claim he is professionally fairly sure there was an accident, specifically, when there is no evidence of accident over murder? There is no such evidence, whatsoever. But Mr. Amaral talks with reasonable surety, as if his conclusion is a really obvious, likely one. The truth is there is no surety of an accident, nothing to suggest it over murder whatsoever, and it’s by far the least likely possibility.

    Re. Accident because …

    “4. Unable to profit from their book etc etc”

    What? An accident occurred to allow the McCanns to write a book about it and profit?

    Isn’t there a clear categorical error in there, Chris?

    Chris, you’re making no logical sense whatsoever, now. People may have reasons to suggest there was an accident, but you’re more confused than anyone.

    I’m thinking now that you are not, and perhaps weren’t ever really, taking the matter too seriously, Chris.

    I’m not sure I want to be posting on this theme any / much longer.

  45. 295
    G1 Says:

    The other thing is, the McCanns as likely or more likely – I would say MORE or MUCH MORE likely – to be found as negligent parents, with action taken against them, easily with their remaining children taken away from them, by making up a scenario involving a false abduction including that they left open flat doors.

    If the couple wanted to avoid close inspection for negligence and possibly losing their children – why on earth would such an absurd story be given which has the McCanns leaving 3 children in a flat with unlocked doors, and in fact a stranger stole one child?

    If there had been an accident, and they were going to make such a story, IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING INVESTIGATED FOR NEGLECT and being incapable of caring for their children, it simply WOULD NOT involve that they left 2 babies and one very young infant in an unlocked, unguarded flat for hours.

    No-one would be so stupid as to do that, in order to avoid losing their children / being found negligent in civil law etc.

    There could even a question of gross negligence – criminal behaviour – with leaving babies in an unlocked, unguarded premises on the ground floor, for hours.

    But it is really very, very, unlikely indeed that gross negligence (which would probably affect their jobs, while civil negligence probably wouldn’t), criminal liability would be considered after a genuine accident. It wouldn’t be considered.

    So actually, in terms of potentially being found negligent – the accident with the absurd abduction theory would only leave the parents in the same kind of position or worse, in terms of possible consquences upon them, than they would have been in by just plainly saying there was an unfortunate accident.

    Obviously, the McCanns would have known that it would come down to admitting the flat doors were unlocked. Again, it would be a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE thing to invent the false “abduction by stranger” theory. And there is NO WAY they would have done this without checking the physical reality of the flat at that time. Including that it would mean having to claim that the flat was left unlocked.

  46. 296
    G1 Says:

    … And, of course, the risk of being caught after inventing such a story, is massive, and would SURELY means prison or secure psychiatric wards for a very long time.

    Reporting a genuine, unfortunate accident carried no such risks, it seems clear to me.

    If there had been some negligence, and even if the parents admit this, they might be sued by British social services for a negligence judgement in civil law. Their guardianship over their babies would be questioned. But only for a while. They’ have to go through procedures of counselling, being interviewed, courses, proving they have learned their lesson and are responsible enough to care for their two children.

    To me that seems really like the worst case scenario for the McCanns, in being honest that there was some negligence involved in Madeleine’s accidental death.

    And that is just nothing compared to the real events which did occur, especially if those parents were suffering anyway because their much lover daughter died due to a bit of a lack of care on their behalf. The real events which did happen after Madeleine was reported missing are in the deepest world of nightmare – whether or not the McCanns have been fully honest.

    They’re saving themselves nothing at all (Chris) by “making up” an absurd story of a false abduction.

    They’re making it much harder for themselves than it would be.

    They’re running the hugest gamble possible, that it would take psychopaths to run, of getting caught and incarcerated for life. … When that would never happen if they were to be honestly admitting an accident.

  47. 297
    Chris Says:

    I find your ramblings and repetitions very difficult, tedious, and impossible to follow.

    I suggest you look up the word concise.

    Have you read the FREE book?

    I shall await the outcome of the libel case with interest. I know who should lose.

  48. 298
    G1 Says:

    Chris.

    Well done.

    You know very well, it seems what A WORD means – concise, and what it doesn’t mean.

    Chris, well done for working out that I have not been trying to be concise.

    However, I cannot for the life of me work out why you would bother reading what is very serious, and obviously not concise, when you can read many things in many places which ARE concise. About Madeleine McCann, or not about Madeline McCann.

    This comes in your continuing insults, Chris, including apparently pretending that you were making a joke, like a baby does, when your arguments don’t even make sense themselves in the words you use.

    After all of that, please don’t try to establish that this forum has a requirement of being concise.
    Or that you can prevent me from writing what is not concise here.

    I, for one, would however, think it is valid to suggest that it, like any forum, should have a requirement of choosing words that make sense. And not continuously insulting another when he points out to you that your words and phrases do not even make basic, logical sense.

    Anyway, I think I may have posted enough for a while.

    Yet, Chris, I may not. I don’t know.

    I’ll just end, wondering after all I’ve posted – which was in fact in response to your questions to me which didn’t make sense in themselves – what next that’s nonsensical to support your theory.

    It almost seems as if the theory or any theory doesn’t matter itself, as long as you manage to be confusing and illogical and using words beyond what they can mean.

    Anyway, hail ho, sir. Best of luck.

    That’s me over and out for a while.

  49. 299
    G1 Says:

    But to say two things:

    1. Why do you even bother, anyway Chris? In comment 297 you’re asking about something I’ve stated in the simplest terms numerous times in the past. And I even repeated after you asked last.

    Why do you bother?

    “I suggest you look up the word concise.

    Have you read the FREE book?”

    2. Actually, personally, I don’t feel that the case against Goncalo Amaral for libel is a bad one at all. As someone who went to a postgrad college to study law (while not going into law), it’s interesting to me, and it’s certainly not in legal terms a ridiculous case to take against Goncalo Amaral.

    Rather than it being ridiculous of the McCanns, it seems it can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Here was a police man whose professional job was to make a case. When there was not sufficient evidence there, the man uses his professional findings to publish against the subjects of the case rather than bring them to trial.

    If Amaral had made his findings outside of his job, things would be different. But they’re not. Objectively, in theory, it can be a very unacceptable thing for a policeman to take his professional knowledge of something and publish against someone.

    International law is on the side that someone is considered not to be guilty unless proven so in a court of law. Therefore, especially as Amaral is using police work and making assumptions from there, the McCanns have every right to bring him to trial for libel.

    It was very different, I thought, with Tony Bennett, who I supported much more.

    I don’t suppose all of that is anywhere near as “concise” or Fisher Price for your needs, Chris. But first and foremostly, I’m writing in an open forum, whether writing what I think first of, or replying to someone, and not someone’s Facebook page or similar.

    So, ultimately, I’m not and have not remotely been, writing just for you or your conciseness preferences, Chris.

    If you don’t want to read or work out what someone is saying, why even reply? Just leave them be. It’s better than insulting and seeming to suggest that you own the forum and can ordain who writes what and how.

  50. 300
    Rebecca Says:

    In the fear of the moment I doubt they’d be thinking 100% straight and there is no way they could foresee the future to know how this would all unroll and maybe they were hellbent on protecting EVERY aspect of the lives they’d made for themselves so far (ie not prepared to be looked at as negligent) and maybe they also firmly believe despite mucking up they are fit parents for the twins (which they could well be). I find most of what Ive heard Kate say fits with grief for a daughter no longer alive and a sickening feeling for letting things go so far. Ive always thought if Madeleine died due to their actions that Kate was pressured by Gerry to take a certain course of action – at times she has deeply regretted this. If the truth ever comes out it will be from her. I have my own picture and theory of what took place as do many and there is no way with so many doubters that something is very fishy indeed and I think is sad theyve dragged so many through this with them because child abduction cases tear at our heart strings.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 » Show All

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

*

Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes