Too many loopholes in the case?

[Seashell]

My first reaction when i saw the news here was, who and how can a responsible parent leave their 3 under 4 year old kids alone in a holiday apartment knowing full well that the hotel also offer babysitting for travellers with small children?
As the days went by i also asked myself this:
what took the mother so long to report her child missing? apparently she took 40 mins. to tell everyone that little madeleine was "missing".
I find it also suspicious that when the parents have been interviewed they both look downwards and their body language speaks volumes, if they are without blame surelly they will look ate the camera as well as the interviewer straight in the eye? i havent seen the mother not once breakdown nor shed a tear on t.v as i have seen in similar cases of parents asking for help and showing real emotional distress.
The twins are always seem subdued whenever seen to be carried by both parents, children at that age are much more active they look too relaxed.
The parents are Doctors and also its been proven that they were giving madeleine a sedative which goes to explain why 3 small kids were left alone in the apartment ask yourself this: would you leave your kids like this without any kind of sedatives? of course not! 3 small kids going to sleep at the same time?
too many loopholes in my eyes.
I hope i am wrong in suspecting the mother and father.

[Pelicanette]

You are entitled to your opinion, but none of what you say amounts to proof that the parents in any way harmed their daughter.

We all acknowledge they should not have left the children alone, even for a short time, but that is a separate issue. Many people left their children alone that night, and those children were not taken.

Shocked and bereaved parents do not always do what we imagine we would do in their situation. Many are simply too stunned and heartbroken to react much at all. Others show great anger. Others are almost catatonic. People differ in how they react to grief and trauma.

The twins appear healthy to me and as happy as they can be in this circumstance. The heartache, worry and concern of the parents will rub off on the twins, no matter what. Children can sense when something is wrong and they are old enough to wonder where their sister is.

Most of the loopholes I see are in the police attempts to blame the parents. First, the police do not even know that Madeleine is dead. Nor do they know that she is injured in any way. They may be assuming that, but it cannot be proven. They have not found Madeleine dead or alive.

Second, the timeframe is impossible. There is just no way the parents could have hurt Madeleine, cleaned up, covered up, enlisted the help of others, disposed of the body and all the while gone back and forth to the dinner table.

I think a predator took Madeleine and may still have her somewhere.

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Pelicanette

You are entitled to your opinion, but none of what you say amounts to proof that the parents in any way harmed their daughter.

We all acknowledge they should not have left the children alone, even for a short time, but that is a separate issue. Many people left their children alone that night, and those children were not taken.

Shocked and bereaved parents do not always do what we imagine we would do in their situation. Many are simply too stunned and heartbroken to react much at all. Others show great anger. Others are almost catatonic. People differ in how they react to grief and trauma.

The twins appear healthy to me and as happy as they can be in this circumstance. The heartache, worry and concern of the parents will rub off on the twins, no matter what. Children can sense when somethin
g is wrong and they are old enough to wonder where their sister is.

Most of the loopholes I see are in the police attempts to blame the parents. First, the police do not even know that Madeleine is dead. Nor do they know that she is injured in any way. They may be assuming that, but it cannot be proven. They have not found Madeleine dead or alive.

Second, the timeframe is impossible. There is just no way the parents could have hurt Madeleine, cleaned up, covered up, enlisted the help of others, disposed of the body and all the while gone back and forth to the dinner table.

I think a predator took Madeleine and may still have her somewhere.

I appreciatte your input on this and thank you for taking time to answer, i feel as strongly about this little girl as i do about the dissapearance of little Jeremi Vargas (posted on international news here) sadly in the case of little jeremi he isnt english nor is it a case thats known internationally and i posted his dissapearance on here in the hope that someone out there anywhere in the world could see his little face...
The spansih authorities are doing their best to find the culprit.
I also pray and hope that little madeleine is found alive, she is such a beautiful child and it is immensely frustrating all this waiting.
Gnite.

[Pelicanette]

Many children and adults go missing every day, but some make it to the national headlines, and we do not really know why. It is a fact that more missing girls make the news than boys. For some reason, the press and/or the public are more captivated by a missing girl or woman than by a missing boy or man. It helps if there are a lot of pictures of the child in question, because the press wants to publish photos as well as written reports. In the case of JonBenet Ramsey, the press kept that case going for years because of her beauty and the fact that there were dozens of pictures of her in beauty pageant costumes as well as professional photos done for her parents. Who knows why one child captures the attention of the press and public and another does not. Beauty, wealth, unusual circumstances, etc., all seem to play into it. But every missing child is a heartache for someone, whether or not their cases get a lot of attention.

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Pelicanette

Many children and adults go missing every day, but some make it to the national headlines, and we do not really know why. It is a fact that more missing girls make the news than boys. For some reason, the press and/or the public are more captivated by a missing girl or woman than by a missing boy or man. It helps if there are a lot of pictures of the child in question, because the press wants to publish photos as well as written reports. In the case of JonBenet Ramsey, the press kept that case going for years because of her beauty and the fact that there were dozens of pictures of her in beauty pageant costumes as well as professional photos done for her parents. Who knows why one child captures the attention of the press and public and another does not. Beauty, wealth, unusual circumstances, etc., all seem to play into it. But every missing child is a heartache for someone, whether or not their cases get a lot of attention.

I agree with you on this as i was reading a british newspaper only the other day and one particular story had me upset once i read it, this woman was talking about how her son "dissapeared" while on a greek island about 10 years ago, i really have to find this womans case and show it on here, bbl.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Seashell

I agree with you on this as i was reading a british newspaper only the other day and one particular story had me upset once i read it, this woman was talking about how her son "dissapeared" while on a greek island about 10 years ago, i really have to find this womans case and show it on here, bbl.

You are talking about Ben Needham. I think it was more like 15 years ago. It was quite a high profile case too. I read a recent news article which suggested that Ben's Mum was a bit aggrieved at the publicity the McCanns have received and that she felt this was due to their education and social position but I'm not sure how fair or accurate the article is likely to have been.

Ben's uncle came under suspicion. As I recall, his story was odd and there was something about him being unable to recall his actions at the time Ben went missing and something about a "dream" where he'd accidently killed Ben on his moped. There was a more recent documentary about Ben and his uncle where the unlce underwent forensic hypnosis to see if his memory could be recovered. I watched to documentary and posted quite a bit about it at the time because I thought it might be interesting if the Ramseys had been willing to undergo forensic hypnosis to unlock some of their memories.

If you are interested, I'm sure you'll find information about Ben Needham and the uncle/forensic hypnosis online still.

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

You are talking about Ben Needham. I think it was more like 15 years ago. It was quite a high profile case too. I read a recent news article which suggested that Ben's Mum was a bit aggrieved at the publicity the McCanns have received and that she felt this was due to their education and social position but I'm not sure how fair or accurate the article is likely to have been.

Ben's uncle came under suspicion. As I recall, his story was odd and there was something about him being unable to recall his actions at the time Ben went missing and something about a "dream" where he'd accidently killed Ben on his moped. There was a more recent documentary about Ben and his uncle where the unlce underwent forensic hypnosis to see if his memory could be recovered. I watched to documentary and posted quite a bit about it at the time because I thought it might be interesting if the Ramseys had been willing to undergo forensic hypnosis to unlock some of their memories.

If you are interested, I'm sure you'll find information about Ben Needham and the uncle/forensic hypnosis online still.

Thanks!

Hi and yes i read exactly what was written in the "Daily Express" by the mother of Ben needham, actually when i read the part where she told the reporter that bens uncle was on his moped and pointed ben in the direction of the house and then drove off for a swim, i found it difficult to believe he had left the toddler on his own to find his way to the house.
I posted the childs dissapearance on the "international" section.

[Seashell]

Update:
MADDY: PARENTS' CAR HID CORPSE

Wednesday October 17,2007
By David Pilditch in Praia da Luz
BODILY fluids found in the car hired by Madeleine McCann’s parents could only have come from a corpse, it was claimed yesterday.


Forensic tests prove a body was placed in the Renault Scenic, a Portuguese police source alleged.


The fluids were on the underside of a carpet over the spare tyre well in the boot of the car hired by Kate and Gerry McCann 25 days after Madeleine disappeared on May 3, aged three.


The traces could not have been transferred from Madeleine’s clothes as the McCanns have claimed, the source said.


He added: “Police are being told the fluids come from a dead body.


“These are bodily fluids that could only come from a corpse. Police are waiting for the results to confirm the identity of the DNA.” Forensic tests are being carried out in Britain. The fluid was previously claimed to show an 88 per cent match to Madeleine’s DNA.



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...car-hid-corpse

I am sitting tight for results...

[Angie1960]

I, like Seashell hate to belive that the parents had something to do with this. I haven't been following this too closely but I have my suspisions of the parents myself. What I do remember is that the McCanns did use the babysitting service (or Creche) - why didn't they use them that night? It would be a good cover if something had happend in the late afternoon when the mother was supposed to have been alone with her - she had ample time to hide the body temporarily. I can't believe everyone was involved in a cover up. although some may have been. There are a lot of loopholes in some of their stories.

The problem here is that I am a bit jaded. The first time I heard of a child gone missing then being found dead - I refused to believe it was the parents, I was very young and could not fathom such a thing. When it turned out to be the parents I was distraught. NO ONE wants to believe that seemingly upstanding professional people could do something like this. Unfortunatley, is is most often the case. Those of us who suspect that the parents may have been involved are just realists. It does not mean we believe without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty - it's possible they are not - but the reality is statistics show that it is a great possibility, and that coupled with the creep factor I personally get from the content of their website, make me very weary of the parents. And here is something to ponder:

If Maddie was killed (and I don't believe she is alive) by a predator, what were her last minutes or hours like? If she was killed accidently by her mother... Well for Maddy's sake, I hope it was the latter.

Maybe we just don't want to think about what that little girl may have gone through if it was a predator. We are all speculators here, armchair warriors so to speak and our opinions are just that - opinions. We vent because crimes against children appall us - we are all together on that!

[Angie1960]

Seashell - thanks for that latest update! Very interesting!

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Angie1960

Seashell - thanks for that latest update! Very interesting!

thanks Angie!
POLICE TRYING TO MAKE KATE CRACK

POLICE last night relentlessly piled up the pressure on the mother of missing Madeleine McCann.
The new officer in charge of the investigation put Kate McCann at the centre of two dramatic developments.
He was granted permission by a judge to seize her diary and announced that she will be subjected to a minute-by-minute reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared.
Mr Rebelo is said to have ordered the minute-by-minute reconstruction to test the accounts of part-time GP Kate and heart consultant Gerry, both 39, with statements made by the seven friends on holiday with them.
Investigators hope to use the reconstruction to shed light on alleged contradictions in evidence given by different members of the party, who were dining at a nearby tapas restaurant when Madeleine, three, disappeared from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz 168 days ago.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ake-Kate-crack

Maddy

[Pelicanette]

Saying that the police are "demanding a minute by minute account of that day or evening" from Kate and Gerry sounds so stern and official and important. But it is pure baloney.

Few people can give an accurate minute by minute account of what they were doing, where they were, what they said, who they saw, etc. for any given time period.

So what if Kate or Gerry or their friends made a mistake in describing the events of the day Maddy disappeared? People can make mistakes. They can forget. They can get confused about the time.

None of that is worth a hill of beans toward proving what happened to Maddy or where Maddy is right now. If Kate says she last saw Maddy at one time and Gerry says she last saw Maddy at another, it is not proof of anything except that they have different impressions or memories.

[Pelicanette]

If there were bodily fluids from a corpse in the hire car, somebody would be arrested and charged by now. LOL Just what would the cops be waiting for if they had that kind of forensic evidence. LOL It is all so silly. There was nothing at all in the hire car to indicate that a dead body had been in the car. It would be laughable if it were not about a missing child, who may very well be alive.

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Pelicanette

If there were bodily fluids from a corpse in the hire car, somebody would be arrested and charged by now. LOL Just what would the cops be waiting for if they had that kind of forensic evidence. LOL It is all so silly. There was nothing at all in the hire car to indicate that a dead body had been in the car. It would be laughable if it were not about a missing child, who may very well be alive.

We shall wait and see how the investigation evolves with the new police team, i will not speculate until everything is confirmed.

[Seashell]

Good!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...O-14-QUESTIONS

By Padraic Flanagan in Praia da Luz Have your say(122)
POLICE chiefs have drawn up a dossier of new questions for Kate and Gerry McCann about the night their daughter disappeared, it was revealed yesterday.

Detectives are travelling from the Algarve with an official request to interview Madeleine’s parents and the seven friends with whom they were on holiday in Praia da Luz.



They will table 14 key questions in an attempt to break the deadlock in the stalled investigation. The news came on the day Kate broke down and sobbed during a TV appearance in which she and Gerry spoke of their belief that Madeleine is still alive.


Investigators believe that members of the party – dubbed the Tapas Nine after the Spanish-themed restaurant they were in when Madeleine disappeared – may have been involved in the crime.


Gerry and Kate will be interviewed for the second time as official suspects but it will be the first interrogation in Britain. The outcome of the interviews, to be held within days, could lead to Portuguese police naming other members of the group as official suspects.


Under Portuguese law, detectives would have to declare them “arguidos” in order to ask them key questions about events leading up to the night of May 3 when Madeleine vanished.


Three detectives are now set to fly to Britain bearing a legal letter signed by a Portuguese judge, asking their counterparts in the UK to table the series of questions on their behalf.


It is likely the interviews will be conducted by officers from Leicestershire police who have already been helping the investigation.


But Portuguese officers are hoping to be present during the interrogations, which will be the first to take place since the days immediately after Madeleine disappeared from the McCanns’ holiday apartment at the Ocean Club resort.


The couple were dining at the restaurant on the complex with seven friends, including Rachael Oldfield, 36, Matthew Oldfield, 37, Jane Tanner, 36, Russell O’Brien, 36, Fiona Payne, 34, David Payne, 41, and Dianne Webster, Fiona Payne’s mother.


The interviews will be confined to questions covered in the formal request from the Portuguese judge. Algarve detectives may ask for follow-up questions to be put to the group but it is only at the discretion of British police carrying out the interviews. A


source within the Policia Judiciaria said: “The presence of our investigators in the interrogation room is important because they can analyse the gestures and facial expressions of those interviewed. “This is an important part of a criminal investigation.


It is what they call behavioural analysis.” The key questions reveal how Portuguese detectives are sticking to the theory that the McCanns, and possibly their friends, are involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Her parents, and the family friends, have strenuously denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and insist she was abducted.


They also deny any wrongdoing. Last night a friend of the McCanns said: “Kate and Gerry’s friends are expecting to be interviewed again at some point and are happy to co-operate and do anything they can to help find Madeleine.”


One member of the group, Jane Tanner, 36, has already told police how she saw a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket near the Ocean Club complex on the night Madeleine disappeared.


Miss Tanner told police the man was heading towards the home of Robert Murat – the British expat who was named as the first official suspect.


Murat, 33, was also placed in the frame by three other members of the McCanns’ party.


Miss Tanner’s hospital consultant partner Dr Russell O’Brien, 36, Dr Fiona Payne, 34, and doctor’s wife Rachael Oldfield, 36, all claimed they saw Murat near the McCanns’ apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.


In July the three friends flew back to Portugal to confront Murat over his alibi during a tense five-hour grilling. Murat – now set to be cleared – insisted he did not leave home that night and went to bed early after dining with his mother Jenny, 71.


Dr Payne’s medical researcher husband David, 41, is said to have been one of the last people to see Madeleine. He joined Kate and her children at the McCanns’ apartment at 6.30pm on May 3 after Gerry asked him to check on them while he was having a tennis lesson.


Members of the party have told police they took it in turns to check on the children during the evening. Police are said to be concerned at inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends of the events that took place that night.

[Jayelles]

I don't know how many people here are in the UK?

Clarence Mitchell was on tv this morning and he was asked about these investigators coming over to question the McCanns and their friends. He said that there had been a lot of rumours but added that this latest rumour seems to have come from a senior Portuguese detective so it would tend to have more credibility that other tabloid rumour. However, he said that they've not been told officially but that the McCanns will welcome it.

It therefore seems unlikely to be imminent.

It also transpires that their interviews in Portugal weren't taped and there is concern that some of meaning of their responses may be lost in translation.

I encountered a translation problem some years ago when the word "anxious" was translated into German and then retranslated back into English as "unbalanced"! Clearly the two words have very different meanings and could have caused considerable distress!

[Pelicanette]

Every time a new leader is appointed to an investigation, people are re-interviewed. I don't make too much of that. People seem to cling to the idea that the McCanns and their friends have inconsistencies in their accounts of that last day. Well, that is to be expected. If they had conspired, they would all be telling exactly the same story. The fact that they do not agree in every detail indicates to me that they did not get together and plan what to say or how to say it.

[Angie1960]

Originally Posted by Pelicanette

People seem to cling to the idea that the McCanns and their friends have inconsistencies in their accounts of that last day. Well, that is to be expected. If they had conspired, they would all be telling exactly the same story. The fact that they do not agree in every detail indicates to me that they did not get together and plan what to say or how to say it.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. So there's no way they could all remember the truth but they would be able to remember all the lies they are supposed to tell???

[Seashell]

Its known that witnesses are interviewed many times to determine if what they say is really the truth, if it helps to determine the truth behind all this mess then so be it!

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Angie1960

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. So there's no way they could all remember the truth but they would be able to remember all the lies they are supposed to tell???

It might sound silly, but police do tend to get suspicious when everyone tells exactly the same story.

[Angie1960]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

It might sound silly, but police do tend to get suspicious when everyone tells exactly the same story.

Yes - that's true if it seems like its all been rehearsed. But I truly hope we are not employing total idiots. And law enforcement has been dealing with this fact for a long time - I certainly hope they can weed out minor perceptual variants from real inconsistancies.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Seashell

Its known that witnesses are interviewed many times to determine if what they say is really the truth, if it helps to determine the truth behind all this mess then so be it!

That's correct - and the questions are often rephrased. I was recently personality profiled and it was pretty stressful answering some of the questions because they were similar to previous questions (but not the same). They do this to detect inconsistency and they also time you to see how long you think before answering. They like you to answer quickly. When you get your profile, there are two charts - one is the conscious and the other is the unconscious and the difference between them is the inconsistencies. It's very clever. My profile was spot on and my family and friends had a good laugh because it described me to a "t".

[Pelicanette]

Angie, the McCanns and their friends were at a table, visiting and socializing, eating and drinking, coming and going. I doubt that any of them was taking notes about who was at the table at what time, who went to check on the children first and second and third, who said what to whom, who drank how many drinks, who ate how many tacos, who said exactly what to whom exactly when, etc. Imagine that you were with a group of friends in the same situation. Later, one of the children went missing. Could you remember exactly what happened and when and who said what and all the rest if you were questioned? The truth is that people recall things differently. One person may remember that she went to check the children at exactly nine o'clock. Other may think that someone else went at nine. It is not a case of lying, but a case of faulty or different recollections. Even eye witnesses to an accident will often have different stories to tell of what happened. We all perceive things differently and have different levels of observation. I am not at all good with time, for instance. My husband is much better at remembering what time something happened. I am better at recalling what color dress someone was wearing or what someone was drinking. My hubby would not notice such things most of the time.

If the McCanns were guilty and had enlisted the help of their friends to cover up a crime or hide the body, they would all get their stories absolutely straight and would give the same answers. They did not do that, and they are answering things the way people often do.

I know that if someone asked me what I was doing last night, I would have to stop and think and try to piece together the list of activities as best I could. I do not write down what time the phone rings, how long I stay on the phone, what time I run to the store, how long it takes me to eat dinner, etc. Most people do not. Good policemen and detectives are usually suspicious of people who have alibis that are too perfect because people normally do not have total recall of what they do and when they do it. Add a half dozen friends to the mix and it becomes even more confusing.

It is all rather silly to me that some people make so much of the interviews that the police conduct. Police invariably go back to take to people again and again, often because they, the police, come up with new ideas or evidence or want to clear something up. They also tell witnesses to phone if they remember anything else about the evening or events in question, because sometimes people recall things days, even weeks, after they happen.

You are mistaken, Angie, if you think that police consider all discrepancies or inconsistencies as lies. They know that people can simply be mistaken about something. There is a big difference between a mistake and a lie. If you ask me what time I ate dinner last night, and I say, seven o'clock, it is probably because I think that I ate dinner at seven. If it turns out that I ate at 7:15, it is not that I was lying but that I was mistaken.

I do not see one scintilla of evidence against the McCanns or any of their friends. I do think that the Portuguese police failed in their job, which is to find Madeleine, dead or alive. I think Maddy may very well still be alive.

[Pelicanette]

I really cannot imagine what the friends would know that could blow this case wide open.

We have to assume that if the McCanns were in the flat with their children from around seven to eight, the friends are not aware of what went on then.

Once they all got to the table and started to have supper, the friends probably did not keep records of who did what and when, what was said, etc.

Unless they went and peeked at Maddy in her bed at a certain time, they cannot guarantee that she was there then and not there later.

I really do not see what they could have to offer that is relevant beyond the sighting by Jane of the man carrying a child, which may or may not be relevant.

The police may ask them how much wine was drunk at the table, but who knows how much each individual drank and what difference does it make in the long run. The police may ask if they recall seeing Gerry or Kate go to check the children, but the friends may not have total recall of when and if that occurred.

I just don't see anything the friends could offer that would be proof of anything. Much of what they say would be opinion. Did Kate appear happy, nervous, frightened, drunk, etc.? But that is opinion, after all, and not proof of anything.

We know Kate and Gerry were at the table for most of the time in question not just from their friends but from the waiters, etc. who observed the table of people. Of course, their recollections may not be the gospel truth, either, because people who are busy waiting on tables may not be the best witnesses.

[Seashell]

At the end of the 30-minute interview, as she broke down again, her cardiologist husband Gerry, 39, was heard to warn her: “Don’t say anything until they’ve taken off your microphone.”

Viewers who watched Kate and Gerry McCann’s tearful TV interview delivered a damning verdict yesterday.


A phone vote moments after the broadcast revealed nearly 70 per cent thought the couple were not telling the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance.




The verdict came as police chiefs in Portugal reacted angrily to the McCanns’ decision to set up a phone hotline in neighbouring Spain manned by private detectives.




They fear that information may not be passed on to them, hindering their investigation which is focusing on the McCanns.




Public opinion in Spain now appears to be mirroring the shift that occurred in Portugal, where many people have turned against the couple.




During the interview shown in Spain yesterday, the crew had to stop filming four times as 39-year-old GP Kate broke down in tears while describing life without her daughter

At the end of the 30-minute interview, as she broke down again, her cardiologist husband Gerry, 39, was heard to warn her: “Don’t say anything until they’ve taken off your microphone.”


The surprising remark was broadcast to millions of viewers of late-night Spanish chat show 360 Degrees on the country’s Antena 3 channel. It clearly failed to impress the audience.

The couple were savaged in the phone vote following the show, with only 30 per cent signalling they thought the couple were being honest about what happened to their daughter.

Thousands more who thought the couple were not telling the truth registered their response on internet websites.

One wrote: “I had an empty feeling inside when I was watching. It just did not look right. I desperately wanted to believe them but I just couldn’t.”

Another wrote: “I could not believe what he said at the end.

“He should have been putting his arm around her to comfort her – instead he was telling her to keep her mouth shut. What kind of a man is he?”

Kate broke down in tears towards the end of the interview, recorded on Tuesday, as she talked about four-year-old Madeleine, the eldest of her three children.

“I feel sad and I feel lonely and our life is not as happy without Madeleine,” she said, adding: “I feel anxious she is not with us.”

Asked about the last time she saw Madeleine, she said: “She was very happy and loving and I know Madeleine was very happy with her life. She is special.”

The McCanns reportedly chose Antena 3 for the interview ahead of better-known broadcasters such as Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters in the US because they believe their daughter is most likely to be in Spain, Portugal or north Africa.

Asked if she was still as confident of finding Madeleine alive as she had been on May 3, the day the little girl went missing, Kate told the interviewer: “Maybe even more so. I think she is possibly being held by someone in their house but I don’t know. As Madeleine’s mummy I feel in my heart that she is there.

“I don’t know how anyone could harm anyone as beautiful as Madeleine. I don’t mean her appearance. I mean as a beautiful person.”

Explaining why they were speaking out now, Gerry said: “We want people to come forward with any information whatsoever that can help to find her and we want them to be aware of the hotline number (0034 902 300213).”

Kate said: “We just want to appeal to the people of Spain, Portugal and north Africa to help us and to tell them we have a new central phone number for them to call.

“Somebody knows something. It is not about us. It is about Madeleine. She needs our help. She needs her family.”

The couple said they were confident that they would be cleared of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance.

Kate said: “It really is secondary. I will take anything that is thrown at me.” The only thing that mattered, she said, was “getting our daughter back”.

he couple also strongly denied reports that they sedated their children. Earlier this month they threatened legal action over “hurtful” allegations that they gave the youngsters sleeping pills.

Asked about the claims in the Spanish TV interview, Gerry replied: “It is ludicrous.

“These sort of questions are nonsense and we shouldn’t be giving them the time of day.”


I saw the interview, i was not impressed.

[Jayelles]

I saw the interview, i was not impressed

Some people will never be impressed but listening to a phone-in on radio and reading some of the comments on the news websites, there has been a huge wave of support for them following this interview.

At the end of the day, they are doing this to keep Madeleine in the forefront of peoples' minds - something which they have been advised to do by the American organisation for missing chlildren. They've said themselves, nothing can hurt them as much as madeleine being taken and I think that would hold true for most of us so I guess the opinions of people who watch and analyse and criticise is moot.

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

Some people will never be impressed but listening to a phone-in on radio and reading some of the comments on the news websites, there has been a huge wave of support for them following this interview.

At the end of the day, they are doing this to keep Madeleine in the forefront of peoples' minds - something which they have been advised to do by the American organisation for missing chlildren. They've said themselves, nothing can hurt them as much as madeleine being taken and I think that would hold true for most of us so I guess the opinions of people who watch and analyse and criticise is moot.

At the end of the day 70% of the people voted that the way this couple handled the interview i am and was not impressed, wether you or their followers like it thats how i and 70% of the public felt.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Seashell

At the end of the day 70% of the people voted that the way this couple handled the interview i am and was not impressed, wether you or their followers like it thats how i and 70% of the public felt.

70% of the people that voted does not IMO equate to public feeling IMO. We know from political polls that the people who actively seek out these polls to vote in are not representative of the population as a whole. Also, people are more likely to seek them out if they feel negatively than otherwise. That is why people are more inclined to write letters of complaint than letters of praise.

(What kind of people vote on whether or not they are impressed with the way parents are handling their grief over a lost child anyway? That seems unbelievably sick. It's tantamount to evaluating someone's suffering.)

What next?

[Seashell]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

70% of the people that voted does not IMO equate to public feeling IMO. We know from political polls that the people who actively seek out these polls to vote in are not representative of the population as a whole. Also, people are more likely to seek them out if they feel negatively than otherwise. That is why people are more inclined to write letters of complaint than letters of praise.

(What kind of people vote on whether or not they are impressed with the way parents are handling their grief over a lost child anyway? That seems unbelievably sick. It's tantamount to evaluating someone's suffering.)

What next?

Thats your opinion, mine is different as to the way they reacted to the questions as well as the fact he warned his wife to make sure the mic was off before she spoke to him.

you say "What kind of people vote on whether or not they are impressed with the way parents are handling their grief over a lost child anyway? That seems unbelievably sick. It's tantamount to evaluating someone's suffering.

70% SPEAKS volumes?

[Results]

Originally Posted by Seashell

Thats your opinion, mine is different as to the way they reacted to the questions as well as the fact he warned his wife to make sure the mic was off before she spoke to him.

you say "What kind of people vote on whether or not they are impressed with the way parents are handling their grief over a lost child anyway? That seems unbelievably sick. It's tantamount to evaluating someone's suffering.

70% SPEAKS volumes?

ITA with you but I think alot of people are missing a very strong point here. These parents did this interview because they thought their little girl was there and if 70% do not believe them there how will they get help from those 70%. These parents should care if they truly believe their daughter is there....if they don't then there is something wrong with these parents. JMHO

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Results

ITA with you but I think alot of people are missing a very strong point here. These parents did this interview because they thought their little girl was there and if 70% do not believe them there how will they get help from those 70%. These parents should care if they truly believe their daughter is there....if they don't then there is something wrong with these parents. JMHO

So basically, you are saying that the McCanns need to somehow "win over" the 70% of people otherwise they won't get any help from them in finding Maddie.

How do you suggest they go about that?

[Results]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

So basically, you are saying that the McCanns need to somehow "win over" the 70% of people otherwise they won't get any help from them in finding Maddie.

How do you suggest they go about that?

WOW your asking me? You know people that know them ask them....I SAID they should care if they think their daugher is over there nothing more nothing less. I'm blunt and to the point. Sorry that is just me. I don't know what to tell them because I never left my children alone to go drinking. They will have to pay a price for that no matter what anyone says. You reap what you sow. JMHO

[Angie1960]

Originally Posted by Results

WOW your asking me? You know people that know them ask them....I SAID they should care if they think their daugher is over there nothing more nothing less. I'm blunt and to the point. Sorry that is just me. I don't know what to tell them because I never left my children alone to go drinking. They will have to pay a price for that no matter what anyone says. You reap what you sow. JMHO

And in a foreign country to boot!

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Results

WOW your asking me? You know people that know them ask them....I SAID they should care if they think their daugher is over there nothing more nothing less. I'm blunt and to the point. Sorry that is just me. I don't know what to tell them because I never left my children alone to go drinking. They will have to pay a price for that no matter what anyone says. You reap what you sow. JMHO

Oh sorry. You expressed a particular opinion so I thought you had particular ideas. I'm also sorry that you are blunt and to the point. Sometimes that's a great thing, and sometimes a little tact and diplomacy works wonders. However, I do agree with you that we reap what we sow.

[Results]

Originally Posted by Angie1960

And in a foreign country to boot!

Exactly! I'm glad some people are seeing the damages these parents have done. The real kicker for me is Kate says it felt like someone was watching them but she leaves her kids alone? That doesn't make sense and furthermore I could care less what she looks like since when do you have to have big boobs to be a Mother. Hello! Something is very wrong here and it seems like alot of people want to explain away any thing they do. I call em as I see them. JMHO

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Results

Exactly! I'm glad some people are seeing the damages these parents have done. The real kicker for me is Kate says it felt like someone was watching them but she leaves her kids alone? That doesn't make sense and furthermore I could care less what she looks like since when do you have to have big boobs to be a Mother. Hello! Something is very wrong here and it seems like alot of people want to explain away any thing they do. I call em as I see them. JMHO

For the record - Kate's mother was interviewed and she said that Kate had said that people might not attack her so much if she were two stone heavier and looked more maternal.

This was rehashed by a tabloid into "if I were less attractive and had bigger boobs". People on the forums then ran with the tabloid twist rather than what was actually said (which let's face it - is considerably less sensational).

This is a classic example of the damage the tabloids are doing to the case.

[Results]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

Oh sorry. You expressed a particular opinion so I thought you had particular ideas. I'm also sorry that you are blunt and to the point. Sometimes that's a great thing, and sometimes a little tact and diplomacy works wonders. However, I do agree with you that we reap what we sow.

Don't feel sorry for me because I'm blunt and to the point because I'm not sorry about it. I'm just honest. If I feel like I need to say something I say it.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Results

Don't feel sorry for me because I'm blunt and to the point because I'm not sorry about it. I'm just honest. If I feel like I need to say something I say it.

Me too. However, I would stop short of saying something very hurtful unless it was in the other person's best interests. Sometimes it's better to put feelings before self satisfaction.

[Results]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

For the record - Kate's mother was interviewed and she said that Kate had said that people might not attack her so much if she were two stone heavier and looked more maternal.

This was rehashed by a tabloid into "if I were less attractive and had bigger boobs". People on the forums then ran with the tabloid twist rather than what was actually said (which let's face it - is considerably less sensational).

This is a classic example of the damage the tabloids are doing to the case.

I do agree with you there. Damage started at the beginning and it just got worse. Who cares what the heck people think of you when you have a child missing? I don't get it? Why does she care? Her concentration should be on her missing child not what the world thinks. JMHO

[Results]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

Me too. However, I would stop short of saying something very hurtful unless it was in the other person's best interests. Sometimes it's better to put feelings before self satisfaction.

You are confused dear. I have no self satisfaction in this case what so ever. There is a child missing and I do not know where she is and I do care that she is found. Hurtful to who? I am sick and tired of hearing about the parents Maddy got lost in this shuffle of who done it..where is she? I'm fighting for Maddy and I don't care about anyone else but her. The parents don't deserve us but Maddy does so I will fight for Maddy. The parents have been too long in the spotlight I want to know where is Maddy and why aren't people worried about her and looking for her. They collected alot of money to be able to do something but they haven't. My concern and only concern is where is Maddy? JMHO