McCanns launch new appeal

[Isabella]

I just dont understand.

People continue to post here and elsewhere in blind support of the McCanns.

They claim abduction with no evidence.

They support parents who disgrace the description - people who even blamed their little just-under-four year old for crying and calling them out of the darkness of a lonely and apparently unsecured holiday apartment. They puzzled that she cried when she awoke alone - were they puzzled that she HAD awoken? Was it that they had sedated her so the puzzlement was that the sedative had failed? Did they apply more the following night? For sure even they admit they left her yet again!

I digress, so incredible was the behaviour of the cadaver juggling locum GP that it causes that digression without fail whenever I consider them!

Anyway, to return to my own puzzlement. Why do people continue to protect and defend these failed parents? Are they paid by Clarence, perhaps by the oddly protective Brian Kennedy?

The evidence is strong that these people did not find their child missing, yet all such evidence is cast aside as a theory with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER is pursued, that of the unheard of crime of abduction of a child by stranger from her bed.

Madeleine McCanns father Gerald contradicted the time that his own witness Jane Tanner claimed she saw Madeleine carried away - he said at the exact time she claimed she'd seen the mysterious abductor that he had looked down on her sleeping form. He wrote this on his 'blog' many weeks after she made the claim. This was no error, he must have known what he was doing in writing this time - this is incontravertable evidence - documented - undeniable. Even on its own this casts doubt over the words of Gerald McCann. Add to this his claim that he thought the twins might have been sedated- yet never had then tested - and I think doubts should form in even the most faithful to the McCann mind!

But does it stop the posters even trying to deny the evidence of the cadaver dog? It does not.l

So who are these people? Fools? friends of the McCanns? Naive faithfuls?

Should we pity or suspect them?

In my mind the McCanns are disreputable child neglectors at the very least. Their supporters are culpable, they prolong the idea that it is acceptable to neglect children. Perhaps their culpability is limited to this....perhaps it is not!

Good post

Btw Brian Kennedy has dumped the McCanns

 

[Texana]

I just dont understand.

People continue to post here and elsewhere in blind support of the McCanns.

They claim abduction with no evidence.

They support parents who disgrace the description - people who even blamed their little just-under-four year old for crying and calling them out of the darkness of a lonely and apparently unsecured holiday apartment. They puzzled that she cried when she awoke alone - were they puzzled that she HAD awoken? Was it that they had sedated her so the puzzlement was that the sedative had failed? Did they apply more the following night? For sure even they admit they left her yet again!

I digress, so incredible was the behaviour of the cadaver juggling locum GP that it causes that digression without fail whenever I consider them!

Anyway, to return to my own puzzlement. Why do people continue to protect and defend these failed parents? Are they paid by Clarence, perhaps by the oddly protective Brian Kennedy?

The evidence is strong that these people did not find their child missing, yet all such evidence is cast aside as a theory with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER is pursued, that of the unheard of crime of abduction of a child by stranger from her bed.

Madeleine McCanns father Gerald contradicted the time that his own witness Jane Tanner claimed she saw Madeleine carried away - he said at the exact time she claimed she'd seen the mysterious abductor that he had looked down on her sleeping form. He wrote this on his 'blog' many weeks after she made the claim. This was no error, he must have known what he was doing in writing this time - this is incontravertable evidence - documented - undeniable. Even on its own this casts doubt over the words of Gerald McCann. Add to this his claim that he thought the twins might have been sedated- yet never had then tested - and I think doubts should form in even the most faithful to the McCann mind!

But does it stop the posters even trying to deny the evidence of the cadaver dog? It does not.l

So who are these people? Fools? friends of the McCanns? Naive faithfuls?

Should we pity or suspect them?

In my mind the McCanns are disreputable child neglectors at the very least. Their supporters are culpable, they prolong the idea that it is acceptable to neglect children. Perhaps their culpability is limited to this....perhaps it is not!

Well said.

I sometimes say this at work when I find myself and colleagues puzzled or taken aback or frustrated by the behavior of people who have shown in the past they are illogical or abusive or just crazy. You know the scene in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 where Johnny Depp says "Pirate!" when he cheats in the swordfight with Orlando Bloom? It is my way of reminding myself and my team that we can't expect rational behavior from people who haven't previously shown any. Pirate! is kind of a code word for that reminder.

You may be fooled because these people look and act much of the time like you or I do. They seem like they are just like us--and then they do something that just makes your jaw drop. You keep trying to come up with a good explanation for them--and then you find yourself saying--"Pirate!"

They inherently don't follow the same rules of common sense, morality, or anything else the rest of us do--for whatever reason.

Refugee, good reminder as to the nature of the McCanns.

It wasn't an isolated one-time under-pressure decision by the McCanns to leave their children alone. It was a considered and vehemently defended decision to this day.

So as Refugee points out, the question isn't perhaps why do the McCanns act as they do, and claim what they claim, and say what they say repeatedly. The question is how what they say can be accepted (especially without any confirming evidence and so many contradictions) by anyone.

 

[rmmbr_Cara]

I think the McCanns are some of the most cold-blooded people I have ever seen. Their sorrow when Madeleine disappeared seemed faked and it looked so easy for them to go back to their former lives without their daughter. I don't think they really ever loved her.

People who are still donating money to the McCanns mystify me. I guess it's true that there is a sucker born every minute.

 

[Isabella]

I think the McCanns are some of the most cold-blooded people I have ever seen. Their sorrow when Madeleine disappeared seemed faked and it looked so easy for them to go back to their former lives without their daughter. I don't think they really ever loved her.

People who are still donating money to the McCanns mystify me. I guess it's true that there is a sucker born every minute.

I totally agree. I dont really think many are donating any more. I know in the local area to where they lived they arent organising the events they once was.

Kate apparently had problems looking after the children and when he was away either her parents would go down there or Gerrys sister and husband would go up to help her look after the children. Im sure..it cant be the easiest thing in the world...but its strange she needed so much help though.

Personally...i do think the McCanns favoured the twins.

 

[rmmbr_Cara]

I would bet if the McCanns were examinated by psychiatrists they would find signs of mental illness in both Kate and Gerry.

 

[Isabella]

I would bet if the McCanns were examinated by psychiatrists they would find signs of mental illness in both Kate and Gerry.

The scary thing is there both doctors. Gerry i think is psychopathic..and possibly abusive. Or at least - in some photos of Kate she has bruises and one especially look like they are from fingers where shes been gripped hard. In some interviews he seems to be squeezing her arms also.

Kate...from a programme i saw a while back..i do think shes unstable. There was a picture i saw of Madeleine as a young child with a cake and her mother and possibly her grandmother...and the picture scared the daylights out of me.

One thing i would say possibly ... i think either something happened on the 1st when Madeleine was crying for a couple of hours and her parents were out drinking (so much for the 15 min checks) OR that something happened while the male babywasher was there with Kate..which could mean that Gerry possibly doesnt know what happened even or that he wasnt there but does know what happened and help to cover up whatever happened,

 

[Isabella]

Interesting article
http://mccanngate.com/

 

[Claycat]

Refugee, we don't support the McCanns; we just aren't convinced they killed Madeleine. We could say the same things about those of you who condemn them. Why do some of you so want them to be guilty? I have often wondered if the kidnapper posts on here. I'm sure the person would love it if the McCanns were found guilty, so that would take any heat off them. I have wondered if anyone here knows the McCanns personally and has a personal agenda against them. It works both ways, Refugee!

 

[Isabella]

Refugee, we don't support the McCanns; we just aren't convinced they killed Madeleine. We could say the same things about those of you who condemn them. Why do some of you so want them to be guilty? I have often wondered if the kidnapper posts on here. I'm sure the person would love it if the McCanns were found guilty, so that would take any heat off them. I have wondered if anyone here knows the McCanns personally and has a personal agenda against them. It works both ways, Refugee!

If you had read posts..you would know that people dont THINK the McCanns killed her . Most believe that an accident happened due to the disgraced parents negligence and that they then concealed a body.

Why do i want them to be found guilty? Because i dont have a shred of doubt they know what happened and i find there behaviour sick. I also worry about the effect its having on the twins...to be given birthday presents etc from a sister who the parents most probably know is dead.

I doubt that any of the Brits here know the McCanns personally..but with more and more of us believing the McCanns know exactly what happened..we cant all be knowing the McCanns and having agendas.

 

[Smokecurtain]

They cleared the McCanns on the grounds of lack of evidence that they committed ANY crime. Are you suggesting the pjs are stupid?

IMO they lifted the arguido status because there was not enough evidence. Like in the case Natalee Holloway/Joran v.d Sloot.
We know he/they did it; we can't proof it without any doubt. Frustrating it is.

 

[Refugee]

Refugee, we don't support the McCanns; we just aren't convinced they killed Madeleine. We could say the same things about those of you who condemn them. Why do some of you so want them to be guilty? I have often wondered if the kidnapper posts on here. I'm sure the person would love it if the McCanns were found guilty, so that would take any heat off them. I have wondered if anyone here knows the McCanns personally and has a personal agenda against them. It works both ways, Refugee![/QUOTE

I'll address your irrational comments one by one. Condemn? Yes we condemn neglectful parents who do not accept their responsibility as it is highly damaging - especially when they are supposedly 'intelligent' (a claim which reveals the weaknesses in the UK education system - their behaviour is hardly worthy of such a descriptor).

'Want them to be guilty'? We know they are guilty of neglect. They have never openly and honestly stated that they regret that neglect (they used mealy mouthed words, no doubt provided by a lawyer, to say they 'regretted not being there when she was taken'). They even play acting 'puzzlement' that she cried when she awoke to find herself alone, why so puzzled? Isnt is obvious and expected that a child might cry when she awakes in a strange place, all alone in the dark and mummy and daddy dont come when she calls? It is this kind of odd behaviour from the McCanns which is highly suspicious.

What kidnapper are you referring to?

Your claim of people having a personal agenda, as you call it, posting here or anywhere to take the heat of themselves is utterly ludicrous! Anyone who posts here is traceable - although I guess you refer to the apparent incredible skilll of the mysterious 'abductor' or 'kidnapper' (who left the McCanns and their cronies to create their own method of obtaining money from Madeleines death). The only people posting here with personal agenda's are those who follow similar approaches to child care or those who are funded by the McCanns or perhaps simple minded or naive and good hearted folk - maybe religious people who cant see bad in anyone, least of all 'born again' people like the McCanns who are simply using religion and abusing peoples faith.

Actually there is no 'heat' on anyone all the time the McCanns do not step forward and help the police with a proper enquiry - and fully co-operate (Kate McCann hides in the UK, still refusing to answer the dozens of questions put to her - at a time when any decent parent would care not a jot for themselves and do anything to recover their daughter - more suspicious behaviour!).

In conclusion, your ludicrous claims are typical - you must be a member of team mcCann - or if not they ought to recruit you! Such a a valiant (though pathetic and hopeless) attempt at distraction form the core debate!

Come on now, lets discuss the other possibilities, abduction has run out of steam - it has no supporting evidence at all.

Oh and for goodness sake stop propagating that misinformation - the McCanns WERE NEVER FORMALLY CLEARED. The investigation was shelved, the status of 'arguido' and 'arguida' (a legal status actually intended to provide rights to the McCanns) lifted because the investigation had been crushed by pressure from the UK.

mark my words, one day we will discover the truth about McCanns Government protection - dont forget he was on many Government sponsored committees - this was no ordinary couple (look at the family photo taken before all this blew up - look at who took the photo, not someone you or I could afford!).

 

[Refugee]

IMO they lifted the arguido status because there was not enough evidence. Like in the case Natalee Holloway/Joran v.d Sloot.
We know he/they did it; we can't proof it without any doubt. Frustrating it is.

Exactly right. They were never formall cleared as they hadnt been formall charged, jsut investigated.

Clearly anyone who is shadowed at all times by UK security personnel is not going to be the subject of justice are they! McCann was a government advisor - his name appeared on many committee minutes.

They had a family photo taken before all this occurred by a famous name photographer. Make no mistake, these arent an ordianary couple!

And who was the tapas 10?

 

[Moab]

IMO they lifted the arguido status because there was not enough evidence.

From your lips to God's ear...So why are you?ther_beatingA_Dead

 

[daffodil]

Exactly Moab,its nearly 2 years later and there is still no further "evidence" against them.

 

[Isabella]

Exactly Moab,its nearly 2 years later and there is still no further "evidence" against them.

Critically...with all the detctives that have been hired..and a 3 mill pound fund almost empty...and theres no evidence of a abduction..

Fancy that

 

[daffodil]

Mexican stand off then? Bit pointless going over it all ad nauseum imo.

 

[Isabella]

Mexican stand off then? Bit pointless going over it all ad nauseum imo.

Oh i disagree..things are coming out about the case all the time..and the point of this forum..is to discuss them i believe

 

[Texana]

Refugee, we don't support the McCanns; we just aren't convinced they killed Madeleine. We could say the same things about those of you who condemn them. Why do some of you so want them to be guilty? I have often wondered if the kidnapper posts on here. I'm sure the person would love it if the McCanns were found guilty, so that would take any heat off them. I have wondered if anyone here knows the McCanns personally and has a personal agenda against them. It works both ways, Refugee!

Color and bolding mine.

I am so thankful to not be drinking some beverage when I read this.

Do you, honestly believe that if indeed Madeleine was abducted, that this criminal sits around making posts to an American crime forum?

At a forum where an email other than the "nothing needed to get free email" address is required for a member? (thus ensuring a permanent internet address is available backed up by other data.)

As if they needed to convince anyone that the McCanns are guilty to avoid detection themselves?

As if, having successfully avoided any sightings of Madeleine, any evidence of themselves at the crime scene, any attention from Metado or any other official law enforcement agency, an abductor would then feel the need to sit around making posts to convince people that the McCanns are guilty. For what reason in the vast universe would anyone find that rational or necessary? "Hey, I've escaped detection after abducting this child, so I'll now convince people who have no power whatsoever in any courts, that the McCanns were guilty!"

And as well, assuming that anyone who doesn't believe the McCanns, must, ergo, know the McCanns and not like them, and therefore have a reason to not believe them--

1) That argument concludes that there exist people who know the McCanns personally and who deduce from their personal experience of the McCanns, that they must not be telling the entire truth about that night. I don't think you want to go there, but it's your theory to defend.

2) It implies as well that no one can have a logical reaction to the McCanns based on their previous actions. One doesn't have to know anyone personally to judge their actions as a) responsible or rational and thereby, worthy of investing further trust in the person(s)' actions, or b) not rational, not defensible, and thereby, evidence that further actions or words should be examined carefully.

 

[Isabella]

Color and bolding mine.

I am so thankful to not be drinking some beverage when I read this.

Do you, honestly believe that if indeed Madeleine was abducted, that this criminal sits around making posts to an American crime forum?

At a forum where an email other than the "nothing needed to get free email" address is required for a member? (thus ensuring a permanent internet address is available backed up by other data.)

As if they needed to convince anyone that the McCanns are guilty to avoid detection themselves?

As if, having successfully avoided any sightings of Madeleine, any evidence of themselves at the crime scene, any attention from Metado or any other official law enforcement agency, an abductor would then feel the need to sit around making posts to convince people that the McCanns are guilty. For what reason in the vast universe would anyone find that rational or necessary? "Hey, I've escaped detection after abducting this child, so I'll now convince people who have no power whatsoever in any courts, that the McCanns were guilty!"

And as well, assuming that anyone who doesn't believe the McCanns, must, ergo, know the McCanns and not like them, and therefore have a reason to not believe them--

1) That argument concludes that there exist people who know the McCanns personally and who deduce from their personal experience of the McCanns, that they must not be telling the entire truth about that night. I don't think you want to go there, but it's your theory to defend.

2) It implies as well that no one can have a logical reaction to the McCanns based on their previous actions. One doesn't have to know anyone personally to judge their actions as a) responsible or rational and thereby, worthy of investing further trust in the person(s)' actions, or b) not rational, not defensible, and thereby, evidence that further actions or words should be examined carefully.

EEK

I hadnt read that part before...i hope she doesnt think me or Badhorsie kidnapped Madeleine cos we live in Europe and think the McCanns are guilty.

But anyhow how can a kidnapper read here? Only real people can read here not phantom ones.

Incidentally although I dont now..at the time of the holiday i only lived about 20 or 30 miles from the McCanns.

 

[Texana]

EEK

I hadnt read that part before...i hope she doesnt think me or Badhorsie kidnapped Madeleine cos we live in Europe and think the McCanns are guilty.

But anyhow how can a kidnapper read here? Only real people can read here not phantom ones.

Incidentally although I dont now..at the time of the holiday i only lived about 20 or 30 miles from the McCanns.[/QUOTE

I'm afraid, Isabella, that under this theory, you and Badhorsie, and Barnaby, and anyone else who finds the McCanns' story suspect and posts here, is perhaps the real abductor/criminal.

What other reason could you or I possibly have to consider the McCanns as not reliable or truthful or having any motive to dissemble from the truth?

Oh, and as a side note to Daffodil, the term "Mexican stand-off" is considered in these parts (closer to Mexico itself) as racially insenstive, politically incorrect, and rather offensive. Particularly when no Mexicans, Argentinians, Columbians, or other residents of Central or South American are involved.

Perhaps there is a corresponding term that is strictly British in history (and one not invoking any colonial overtones) that you could substitute instead.

I understand, of course, the use of the term. Having only come into a more diverse society in the past two or three decades,( as opposed to two or three hundred years or even more), it is perhaps more difficult to be aware of how certain terms can be perceived.