Madeleine McCann 3 year old missing in Portugal - Part 12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaliKid said:
Welcome, wolfmaiden.

No, I don't think this was ever about Madeleine for the McCanns.

IMO, GM resented the time and attention she got from her mother. Maybe it was an image thing (she had the coloboma) or maybe it was the colic, but he never bonded totally with her. After the twins' birth it got worse- they fulfilled what he wanted his children to be like, and Madeleine was shuttled aside for them. If you listen to descriptions of Madeleine from her extended family, most of what they say involves behavior- she was a handful, hard to control, headstrong, full of energy.

Even GM said derisively on camera, "What Madeleine wants, Madeleine gets". Does that sound like a loving father about his missing daughter?

Notice how little GM has spoken directly about her, even at the beginning. It's pretty obvious that he fancies himself some kind of world-wide ambassador for exploited children. He loves the limelight but hates sharing it, even with his own wife and daughter. I think he's jealous of Madeleine, and as far as he's concerned the sooner the "search" settles down and he can get on with his own jet-set life, the happier he'll be. He really thinks he can get away with her disappearance and that he's smarter than the police, the media and the politicians. All he needs is time and the lack of evidence, and he's scared to death of the way everyone has turned on him. But at the same time he believes he's better than everyone else. That's why he's suing the Portuguese newspaper- they dared to question him.

I hope with all my heart that something turns up soon. I keep wondering if someone among the group of friends is going to get sick of situation and own up to his or her part in it. Funny how we haven't heard much from the Tapas group lately. They were quick to defend Russell O'Brien, but awfully quiet about the McCanns.
Click to expand...
Great post Calikid, I agree with every word, you wrote exactly what I was thinking, just wish the messages from my brain to my fingers where as easy to write than they are. Thanks again Calikid for your excellent post.
 
SewingDeb said:
Daily Express

MCCANNS TO VET ITV FILM ABOUT GIRL’S ABDUCTION

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/17960/McCanns-to-vet-ITV-film-about-girl-s-abduction
Click to expand...
I dont understand why the McCanns are entitled to vet a drama about a missing four year old, which is not about Madelaine, but most people would assume that, as the case of Madelaine is such a high profile. I do think the timing of this drama being released is in bad taste, but then they are only looking at the dollar signs not the impact it will have on parents with missing children.
 
philamena said:
I asked the same question the day the news was leaked about the Mccan's Papal blessing. I thought it took months even years to get a blessing from the pope. Smelled funny then, still smells funny to me now.
Click to expand...
I think it was because the McCanns thought that she was abducted to a Catholic country - that she may still be in Portugal or Spain and that the Pope would have influence in these countries.

Why did GM go to Spain? I wondered whether it had anything to do with the car and woman at the petrol station in Sagres(?) that we read about earlier in the proceedings.

It is a great pity that the Portuguese law prevented the police from releasing a photgraph of Madeleine at the start of the enquiry - and that it was the McCanns that forced the issue - as the releasing of any such other material, such as the garage tape, may have helped in the search.

I was under the impression that it was the Pope who could chose who he saw, not the other way around. A PR wouldn't be able to arrange this sort of meeting, but perhaps Catholics would be able to correct this impression. Who would have arranged the meeting between GM and the Pope?

Also does anyone know if the McCanns can speak to the media on the case, once they relocate in Britain?
 
mrsmousemat said:


I think it was because the McCanns thought that she was abducted to a Catholic country - that she may still be in Portugal or Spain and that the Pope would have influence in these countries.

Why did GM go to Spain? I wondered whether it had anything to do with the car and woman at the petrol station in Sagres(?) that we read about earlier in the proceedings.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. They didn't go to any other country where she was sighted. Malta, Morocco, Belgium, France- what was so special about Spain?
 
I wouldn't read much into their visit with the Pope... the media blew this aspect up bigger than it was: they were in a general audience, they had all 15 to 20 seconds of his attention as he made his rounds of speaking with the attendees, as he does after almost every audience he speaks before... all that happened was he acknowledged them, blessed Madeleine's picture, and then moved on. How they got there was through one Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor... and the savyness of the McCann Media Machine.

At least, that is my understanding...
 
Actually, getting the pope's blessing might well have been a smart move (apart from religious reasons which I am not commenting on) because it might help many others to feel better about coming forward if they had any information about the missing little girl. It might also have some effect of preserving her life in some few instances as the pope sits at the head of a very powerful religious and political organization. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that even a passing touch of his concern for this little girl might give some kidnappers pause even if that effect is not the same as it perhaps once was.
 
docwho3 said:
Actually, getting the pope's blessing might well have been a smart move (apart from religious reasons which I am not commenting on) because it might help many others to feel better about coming forward if they had any information about the missing little girl. It might also have some effect of preserving her life in some few instances as the pope sits at the head of a very powerful religious and political organization. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that even a passing touch of his concern for this little girl might give some kidnappers pause even if that effect is not the same as it perhaps once was.
Click to expand...
The McCanns are working on the premise that everytime they do something - the press reports it and therefore they have to print a picture of Madeleine, whether the news is favourable to them or not.

Being pictured with the Pope meant that the case might be reported in places in which it had not been reported before, as despite the tremendous interest, there were still countries in which the case had not been widely reported.

Lately it looks like the McCanns have been trying to do 'one thing a day' to keep the case in the public eye, because they know that abducted children are usually only found by someone identifying a child from a picture.

I don't think a guilty pair (other than leaving her unsupervised) would go to the lengths that they have gone to as there is nearly always a 'tipping point' with the press in which previously admired /respected/victimised people are suddenly derided/criticised/maligned if they continue to be featured widely in the press after a couple of weeks. Their PR should have made them aware of this.

Press support is therefore always 'writ in water', unless you have a very strong and influential PR. To continue to expose yourselves to the press in the way that they have done requires a very strong reason for doing so. No one would go down this route unless desperate.

If you look closely at the Spanish interview GM's eyes have that 'beaten' look - he no longer wants to be interviewed as he knows that every interview, even if it gives a lot of publicity for the case, is now a 'long shot' after all this time. Therefore I think Spain must have been very important to him.

I would imagine they are both near the point at which they can't think of any more ways to increase publicity for their missing child and this is when their distress will increase - by not being able to do much more to help find her and not being able to get rid of the guilt in leaving her back at the holiday apartment. Therefore reports that GM is near a nervous breakdown may be true.

I'm sure a few posters may argue that he probably deserves one but the massive press involvement is probably the only way that Madeleine would be recovered.
 
mrsmousemat said:
Agreed the McCanns might have claimed the doors were unlocked to bolster the abduction theory, but I understand that if the doors were locked, and they had admitted it, they stood to be arrested.

The claim is that the children hadn't been inspected from the inside of the flat as GM didn't take the keys back with him - he just listened outside. We know he was outside from Jeremy Wilkins account but there doesn't seem to be any witness that saw him entering or leaving the flat.
The one fact that seems to be agreed is that the shutters were not 'jemmied' from the outside.

I'm not really interested in judging the either of the McCann' s behaviour in how they left their children on this point.

It's just that if the doors were locked, it would mean that someone had to have a key to the rooms, so that would mean pre-mediatation if you don't go along with the theory that the McCanns or one of their party was responsible.

It also might alter the time frame for Madeleine's disappearance, as it is on GM's visit and Jane Tanner's sighting that we base the time of the possible abduction.

....As for people using this case to promote their own ideas on Websleuths - I don't think it's possible to communicate with any real degree of objectivity, simply because we don't have enough facts - as yet.

Personally I think that everyone has some insights that are helpful (juries apparently reach the right verdicts most of the time) but I was sorry to see, when I first looked at Websleuths, that posters just believed a large amount of what was said in the press, which is natural if you are a trusting sort of person.
Click to expand...


I have based pretty much every thing I have thought about this case on what I have read in the press, and what I have read in here. What else can I do? It's not like I had prescient knowledge of the event, and therefore was able to stalk all the persons involved, and know for a fact from my own eyewitness accounts what actually took place. I don't have high (or for that matter, low) ranking LE personel in my pocket keeping me in the loop on all the evidence gathered. Plus I have never even been in Portugual.
I have read variations on this theme before. I am not going to apologize or make excuses for forming my opinions and theories on what happened to this child based on the information I have received, most of which, yes, has come from some form of news media or another. I am not naive, or stupid, or mentally challenged in any way. Whether I believe only a little of what I read in the press, or every single line they print, does not change the fact I am not officially part of this case, I am not going to be the judge, or sit on the jury, so in the long run, whether one of my theories turns out to be 100% correct, or all of my theories turn out to be cow manure, it doesn't matter.
I read somewhere self-validation, promoting theories, whatever. The reason I read this thread, and occasionally post, is because 1.) I don't like bad things to happen to children, 2.) It kind of ticked me off when I heard this couple who abandoned their children on a nightly basis to go out and party with their friends were now appointing themselves experts on how to keep children safe (I mean, SERIOUSLY???) 3.) This case has twists and turns that makes it very difficult (at least for me) to make sense of, and 4.) I have random bursts of free time at work.
It is my personal opinion if someone out there has information they have not yet revealed, it is because they don't want to get involved, or be incriminated, way more than because the papers have implicated the parents.
Lanie
 
Lanie said:
I have based pretty much every thing I have thought about this case on what I have read in the press, and what I have read in here. What else can I do?
Click to expand...
Lanie said:
Nothing - That was what I was pointing out... because the press contradict one another on a daily basis.

The only thing you can do is to be selective try and separate the articles with unnamed 'sources', from those that quote someone who is in authority and in a position to know what is going on.

As an ex-editor, I am sorry for anyone... Robert Murat, the McCanns.. whose life is turned upside down by misinformation, which is often due circulation battles amongst newspapers. Yes, I know that sounds pompous but they can't really answer back unless they sue.

You might have noticed that since the McCanns announced their libel suit it's gone quieter on the Portuguese front.
Click to expand...
 
Lanie said:
I have based pretty much every thing I have thought about this case on what I have read in the press, and what I have read in here. What else can I do? It's not like I had prescient knowledge of the event, and therefore was able to stalk all the persons involved, and know for a fact from my own eyewitness accounts what actually took place. I don't have high (or for that matter, low) ranking LE personel in my pocket keeping me in the loop on all the evidence gathered. Plus I have never even been in Portugual.
I have read variations on this theme before. I am not going to apologize or make excuses for forming my opinions and theories on what happened to this child based on the information I have received, most of which, yes, has come from some form of news media or another. I am not naive, or stupid, or mentally challenged in any way. Whether I believe only a little of what I read in the press, or every single line they print, does not change the fact I am not officially part of this case, I am not going to be the judge, or sit on the jury, so in the long run, whether one of my theories turns out to be 100% correct, or all of my theories turn out to be cow manure, it doesn't matter.
I read somewhere self-validation, promoting theories, whatever. The reason I read this thread, and occasionally post, is because 1.) I don't like bad things to happen to children, 2.) It kind of ticked me off when I heard this couple who abandoned their children on a nightly basis to go out and party with their friends were now appointing themselves experts on how to keep children safe (I mean, SERIOUSLY???) 3.) This case has twists and turns that makes it very difficult (at least for me) to make sense of, and 4.) I have random bursts of free time at work.
It is my personal opinion if someone out there has information they have not yet revealed, it is because they don't want to get involved, or be incriminated, way more than because the papers have implicated the parents.
Lanie
Click to expand...

This was an excellent explanation of why most of us read and post on this board. Of course, any one of us would love to uncover or interpret the crucial bit of evidence that would solve this awful mystery.

But most of us are capable of making informed judgments about what we learn, and we may well choose to believe (or not) things that others don't (or do), based on our own experiences and knowledge of human nature. I read at least a thousand actual newspapers a year, many more online, and I neither believe nor trust everything I read. I don't consider myself trusting or naive when I choose to believe some of what I read or hear.

I think that there is someone out there who knows something and has told the PJ all he/she/they know(s). The police were dissatisfied with the abduction story from almost the start, and some of the reasons for their dissatisfaction must have been based on what witnesses told them immediately. These witnesses have been discreet, pact of silence or not.
 
mrsmousemat said:


The McCanns are working on the premise that everytime they do something - the press reports it and therefore they have to print a picture of Madeleine, whether the news is favourable to them or not.

Being pictured with the Pope meant that the case might be reported in places in which it had not been reported before, as despite the tremendous interest, there were still countries in which the case had not been widely reported.

Lately it looks like the McCanns have been trying to do 'one thing a day' to keep the case in the public eye, because they know that abducted children are usually only found by someone identifying a child from a picture.

I don't think a guilty pair (other than leaving her unsupervised) would go to the lengths that they have gone to as there is nearly always a 'tipping point' with the press in which previously admired /respected/victimised people are suddenly derided/criticised/maligned if they continue to be featured widely in the press after a couple of weeks. Their PR should have made them aware of this.

Press support is therefore always 'writ in water', unless you have a very strong and influential PR. To continue to expose yourselves to the press in the way that they have done requires a very strong reason for doing so. No one would go down this route unless desperate.

If you look closely at the Spanish interview GM's eyes have that 'beaten' look - he no longer wants to be interviewed as he knows that every interview, even if it gives a lot of publicity for the case, is now a 'long shot' after all this time. Therefore I think Spain must have been very important to him.

I would imagine they are both near the point at which they can't think of any more ways to increase publicity for their missing child and this is when their distress will increase - by not being able to do much more to help find her and not being able to get rid of the guilt in leaving her back at the holiday apartment. Therefore reports that GM is near a nervous breakdown may be true.

I'm sure a few posters may argue that he probably deserves one but the massive press involvement is probably the only way that Madeleine would be recovered.
Click to expand...

I agree with you up to a point. I think the major focus of the McCanns' publicity campaign (interviews, meeting heads of states, visiting the pope) was to get Madeleine's picture out into the newpapers. But they also counted on political pressure to keep a lid on negative reporting from the press. Or maybe GM was so arrogant he never considered they'd reach a tipping point with the press.

One other thing about this case that intrigues me and was brought up in another forum. Within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance the FindMadeleine site and fund had been set up, meaning people were needed to manage it. One of those was GM's uncle, John (Kennedy ?) who quit his job to become a fund administrator. And this is not up for dispute- it is fact; both the McCanns and the uncle claim this is true. My question- how did Uncle John and the McCanns know less than a month in that he would be needed long-term to maintain the fund?
 
CaliKid said:
I don't know how common the name "Gerry McCann" is in Scotland, although the "Mc" gives it away that he's of Irish extraction. It's 11 years old but check this out.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61165825.html
Click to expand...

Wow...although I doubt that's *our* Gerry...medical school would have taken up a lot of time, but then again, do we know how long he's been a practicing doctor?
 
CaliKid said:
I don't know how common the name "Gerry McCann" is in Scotland, although the "Mc" gives it away that he's of Irish extraction. It's 11 years old but check this out.
Click to expand...
CaliKid said:
[URL="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61165825.html"]http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61165825.html[/URL]
Click to expand...


Quite common. I tried running the name through Yell - which is a UK local telephone directory, for you, with businesses in Scotland as a criteria. They are mainly in Glasgow.

There is a historical link between Scotland and Northern Ireland in the last few centuries with people moving from each country to the other. Both countries were relatively poor, compared to the south of England. The north of Ireland is mainly Protestant.

Liverpool, where Mrs McCann originates, was also a poorer part of the UK. It also had a lot of settlers - mainly southern Irish and from Welsh. The south of Ireland is almost all Catholic.
 
Shazza said:
I Thought religion was universal, if your catholic then it doesnt matter what country you live in, Catholic is Catholic, Anglican is Anglican, there are catholics living in the UK even if it is mainly a protestant country. What ever religion you are their doctrines dont change because you live in a different country. This is how I see the way religion works, if I am wrong I apologise. But I truly do not understand how a religion can change from country to country. If you are a non believer in religion, well that is the same all over the world as there are athiests out there. To sum it up what I am trying to say is the rules dont change in religions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, perhaps i didnt explain myself properly. Im not talking about the rules of the religion, but the rules of prosecution in that country. To catholics, the confessional is always sacred, but what i dont know is if the rules of confessional are different when being used for criminal prosecution in different countries. Ive read a number of different articles from Australia, America, Ireland and the UK, and it seems there are different rules depending on which country or even state you are being prosecuted in. Its not the religion that changes, its the law. Its just what i got from my research and thought with the questions, it might be useful reading. Apologise if i wasnt coherent.
 
jacobean said:
Sorry, perhaps i didnt explain myself properly. Im not talking about the rules of the religion, but the rules of prosecution in that country. To catholics, the confessional is always sacred, but what i dont know is if the rules of confessional are different when being used for criminal prosecution in different countries. Ive read a number of different articles from Australia, America, Ireland and the UK, and it seems there are different rules depending on which country or even state you are being prosecuted in. Its not the religion that changes, its the law. Its just what i got from my research and thought with the questions, it might be useful reading. Apologise if i wasnt coherent.
Click to expand...
Thanks jacobean, it wasnt just your post that I fully didnt understand but there is other information which I have read that needed to be clarified. Sorry if I came across harsh, that was not my intention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 238 more.
Total: 1,875 (members: 239, guests: 1,636)

Online statistics

Members online
239
Guests online
1,636
Total visitors
1,875
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,626
Messages
18,097,559
Members
230,891
Latest member
LowStuff5019
Back
Top