General Discussion Thread No. 16

[Love_Mama]

FIVE possible charges.



LoveMama: Here's an article about the doctors:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007421076,00.html

And this tells most of their professions:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=483881&in_page_id=1811

Thanks Soooo much ThoughtFox..... In my heart I KNOW that one of them know's something.

xxxxxxxxxxxooo
mama
:blowkiss: :blowkiss:

 

[Morag]

From Love_Mama's post just above:

But Correio da Manha claimed: “There are details in the friends’ statements which do not add up.

“The friends contradict each other and themselves in their statements, in their timetables and who was the last person to see Madeleine

Well- now we know that there is dispute as to who the last person to see Madeleine was. This could mean that David Payne failed to id himself as the last person, despite what the parents may have said. I think that he could have said he didn't see Madeleine when he went to the McCann apartment at 7PM. If someone came to my house when I was rushing around bathing and tucking in a crowd of toddlers, I might well claim that they saw me putting them to bed. What they were actually seeing was the bedtime routine, and not necessarily any individual toddler. If Payne is reading between the lines of what's in the papers, he may feel that he is being dragged into this thing.

 

[amyandjohn]

I am sitting here reading this thread about a 4 year old missing girl and all the possibilities surrounding her, and am wondering, what about the other group and their children? Where were they during all of this?

If someone was really watching the nightly routine of the McCanns, as it has been discussed here or elsewhere, and decided to take a chance, why only Madeleine? why not all three of the children?

If someone was to kidnap a child to raise as their own, because they couldn't have children, would someone really take a 4 year old when there is obviously another choice? a 4 year old could really make some trouble. There were younger children, even younger than the twins in that room. what about the other rooms that children were left alone while the parent's went to dinner? I know that my 3 year old daughter woudl be screaming and crying for her mommy and daddy that whoever took her would probably bring her back,LOL.

If it was for a pedo-ring, as discussed here or elsewhere, why not take all the children? Much more money. If someone had truely been watching, they would know everyone's rountine, not just the McCann's.

I just cannot understand why this is happening? can someone please just tell the truth, find the body, something to bring this to an end. It hurts to see this childs picture and try to understand what might have happened to her. I keep my child very close, not just because of this child, but others as well. I put her bed in my room, just so I can watch all the time, I am not taking any chances. And yes, I might make her scared, I will pay for that later, but I am scared, why shouldn't she be? At least I will have her around for the rest of my life if I can help it. I wish Madeleine could just be found and be safe. How wonderful would that be.

 

[Maryam]

Hi everyone! This is my first post, and English is not my mothertongue, so please be gentle.

amyandjohn, I have thought about the same things as you have. I don't think any paedophile would take the chance of breaking into a room in a holiday resort complex, when in reality they could just snatch any child from the street or the beach. Anyone who has ever been to the Mediterranian will agree with that there is always lots and lots of small children on the beach, unattended, with parents sleeping on their sunbeds. The beaches are crowded, and it's easy to just take a toddler and drag her into a car.

I don't think there was an intuder, or abductor, I believe the parents have something to do with the whole thing.

But let's just assume for a second that she really was abducted. In that case, the abductor was obviously knowing what he was doing, carefully planing the whole crime, even involving some staging (DNA). Does anyone really think that an intruder like this, who almost has commited the perfect crime, co-works with some amateurs in Northern Africa who let Madeleine go out on the street without even cutting/dieying her hair? Pur-lease. It would take anyone just half an hour to cut her hair, colour it black and dress her in little boys clothes. So I personally don't believe in any sightings.

 

[amyandjohn]

I don't think there was an intruder/abductor either. I was just trying to be nice and think out of the box?? Of course whoever took her would try to change her appearance somehow, but why a 4 year old? why in a room with other children? Dosen't make sense. If this was such a kid friendly resort, I bet children were all over the place by themselves hu? The abductor could have chosen anyone, but they didn't, because there was not one. I have been trying to look at this in all directions, every senerio possible, and there is not any other possibility. Either the parents or one of the group did this, but all players knew what was going on. Poor Madeleine.

 

[Brefie]

Hi everyone! This is my first post, and English is not my mothertongue, so please be gentle.

amyandjohn, I have thought about the same things as you have. I don't think any paedophile would take the chance of breaking into a room in a holiday resort complex, when in reality they could just snatch any child from the street or the beach. Anyone who has ever been to the Mediterranian will agree with that there is always lots and lots of small children on the beach, unattended, with parents sleeping on their sunbeds. The beaches are crowded, and it's easy to just take a toddler and drag her into a car.

I don't think there was an intuder, or abductor, I believe the parents have something to do with the whole thing.

But let's just assume for a second that she really was abducted. In that case, the abductor was obviously knowing what he was doing, carefully planing the whole crime, even involving some staging (DNA). Does anyone really think that an intruder like this, who almost has commited the perfect crime, co-works with some amateurs in Northern Africa who let Madeleine go out on the street without even cutting/dieying her hair? Pur-lease. It would take anyone just half an hour to cut her hair, colour it black and dress her in little boys clothes. So I personally don't believe in any sightings.

Hi and welcome Your English is fabulous :clap:

I think the beach / street abduction carries way more risk....you can't be sure who is watching, regardless of whether parents are sleeping or not. Anyone watching the McCann party for just a day (not long if you are considering a kidnap) would know how easy it would be to grab anyone of those children.

I do agree tho, that if she were abducted ain't no way anyone would recognize her unless they got close enough to her eyes. With all of the world's media on this, there is no way she looks the same.

I am starting to think that if she was abducted, she was probably killed once the abductors realized there was no way to change her unique eye.

QUESTION: Maybe this has been asked before but do you think that all doctors, especially eye doctors have been put on special alert? I ask because the only way to attempt to disguise her eye would be contacts.

 

[Brefie]

Either the parents or one of the group did this, but all players knew what was going on. Poor Madeleine.

Do you really think that NINE people believe she was killed by her parents and NOT ONE person would come forward?
My God, I really hope that our world is not so bad that you cannot find one person in nine who would do the right thing for a murdered child. If this turns out to be true, I think I will be forever changed

 

[Maryam]

Do you really think that NINE people believe she was killed by her parents and NOT ONE person would come forward?
My God, I really hope that our world is not so bad that you cannot find one person in nine who would do the right thing for a murdered child. If this turns out to be true, I think I will be forever changed

I agree with you on that one.

I don't think anyone else knew (even though I'm unsure about JT and RO'B). I guess that they might have their doubts about Kate and Gerry by now, but since they don't know, they give them the benefit of the doubt and are loyal. No way anyone knows about a murder and doesn't come forward. Unless they've done it together, but that is just too unbelievable.

 

[amyandjohn]

I didn't mean all nine of them, I meant all of the players. Which could be just the parents, just the parents and one of the others or two of the others. I didn't mean all nine. Sorry for that. I would expect one of them to say something, but then again, if the parents are involved, and I think they are, I would have expected them to say something happened from the beginning. You never know. If parents could hide something like this and it being this blown out of proportion, how could we not expect all of them to keep a secret. I would hope not, but with this case you never know what will come out next???

 

[Brefie]

Aaaah, I got it.

Who knows what will come out next? It's a noodle scratcher.

 

[PharmSleuth]

Hi! I am a newbie. I have been extensively reading all the threads and I am very impressed with the amount of information shared here! Please be gentle with me

Things that bother me and make me lean in the direction of parental involvement:
1)that a cadaver scent was picked up at all (had to be 2 hours of death for that to be the case) and that scent ended near the beach

2) The general bad hygiene of these 2 doctors: Kate claiming the death scent is from her dead patients-she didn’t gown up around a dead person? The stuffed animal came in contact with her dead patients? They transported poopy diapers in unsealed bags that leaked in a hatchback car? Sweaty sandals transferring DNA?…yet… they washed the curtains of their rental vacation place?. Who does that?:waitasec:

3)Kate saying that she brought cuddle cat to work with her. Nonsensical.

4)Kate and Gerry’s accusations of things being planted by the police

5)Kate and Gerry’s insistence that she could not have wandered out by herself. In a few recent articles, Gerry says the light was on and Kate says that Cuddle Cat was on the high shelf. I can’t recall reading where this shelf is. Maddie could have scooted a chair up to it and gotten on her tippytoes to get something off the shelf (future birthday present?) and therefore had to put cuddle cat on the shelf to grab what she wanted. The light on when one of the Tapas 9 went to check on them could indicate that Maddie herself turned the light on, maybe to get something down from the high shelf. She could have put the chair back in its original place afterwards knowing that her parents do check on her at night and they would have been very angry if they caught her. My 4 year old son who is small has moved a chair, climbed to get something and moved the chair back

If she was abducted, why was there no car heard that night. I read this is a very quiet area and a car would have been heard driving away. No evidence at all in the room of intruder? No fingerprint on the high shelf, hairs, fibers??Was he wearing gloves? If he was wearing gloves, he had to still be wearing them as he carried Maddie out of the apartment (no way you could handle a child and take off gloves at the same time). Wouldn’t this be so obvious to anyone encountering him on the street-a gloved man carrying a child?

 

[Texana]

Pharmsleuth, you raise a good point about the gloves. Hard enough to carry a child without taking on or off gloves--and having an accomplice near by would raise the potential for being seen.

Maryam, interesting point you bring up about taking a child at the beach. It's much easier to take a child from a crowded venue...nobody notices just another person holding even a crying child.

 

[AquaEyes]

One or more of the friends may be talking to the police. It seems that the police have very definite ideas of what had gone on, when and where, and have been eliminating other areas in inquiry. I think some of the "case is falling apart" information is MIS-information to force the hand of some people or allow them to get careless.

 

[Brefie]

Maryam, interesting point you bring up about taking a child at the beach. It's much easier to take a child from a crowded venue...nobody notices just another person holding even a crying child.

Easier than from an empty apartment? Probably KNOWING where the adults are?

 

[Texana]

Easier than from an empty apartment? Probably KNOWING where the adults are?

Yep, if you take the child whose parents aren't looking or are looking away. If you're a woman, acting for someone else, very easy.

If I had wanted to take a young child, I could have done so on numerous times--the worst one being when I watched a toddler wandering through a food court area at the mall. Everyone thought he belonged to someone else. He had actually escaped from the play area and I had followed him, picked him up, and engaged in a lengthy conversation with a fast food place employee ("No, I DON'T want this child, YES call security) when the mother finally showed up. I could have easily left with that child and been well on my way just by moving quickly through the crowd.

It's far easier to do something in a crowd where you can just blend in. If you are an ordinary person (and I am very ordinary!) then you just blend right in.

 

[colomom]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22402077-5000117,00.html

Madeleine, where have you gone?

The Aussies don't mess around...

 

[CaliKid]

Yep, if you take the child whose parents aren't looking or are looking away. If you're a woman, acting for someone else, very easy.

If I had wanted to take a young child, I could have done so on numerous times--the worst one being when I watched a toddler wandering through a food court area at the mall. Everyone thought he belonged to someone else. He had actually escaped from the play area and I had followed him, picked him up, and engaged in a lengthy conversation with a fast food place employee ("No, I DON'T want this child, YES call security) when the mother finally showed up. I could have easily left with that child and been well on my way just by moving quickly through the crowd.

It's far easier to do something in a crowd where you can just blend in. If you are an ordinary person (and I am very ordinary!) then you just blend right in.

I've had the same thing happen to me. Shopping in a store, it isn't uncommon to see a toddler wandering around with no parents in sight.

How hard would it be to watch several small children on the beach? Child playing near the water, parents asleep or sunning and not paying attention. A woman could easily get close, scoop up the child as if a parent and walk away without notice. If the kid started fussing from being handled by a stranger, most people would chalk it up to a temper tantrum. More than likely by the time an alarm was raised, the perps would be miles away and nobody would know exactly what they saw.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Welcome, Pharmsleuth! Great post, and I agree with all your points, especially this one:

5)Kate and Gerry’s insistence that she could not have wandered out by herself. In a few recent articles, Gerry says the light was on and Kate says that Cuddle Cat was on the high shelf. I can’t recall reading where this shelf is. Maddie could have scooted a chair up to it and gotten on her tippytoes to get something off the shelf (future birthday present?) and therefore had to put cuddle cat on the shelf to grab what she wanted. The light on when one of the Tapas 9 went to check on them could indicate that Maddie herself turned the light on, maybe to get something down from the high shelf. She could have put the chair back in its original place afterwards knowing that her parents do check on her at night and they would have been very angry if they caught her. My 4 year old son who is small has moved a chair, climbed to get something and moved the chair back

You have really got a great point there, and that is something I keep coming back to over and over.

I have three kids. From the age of two, they could throw their toys high enough to hit the ceiling, especially something lightweight like Cuddle Cat.

I've also had kids throw toys behind dressers or up on top of furniture, and sometimes the kids would try to climb up and get it back.

I've know two year olds who would push a chair to a kitchen counter and try to get into cabinets.

We had to remove the ladder from our bunk beds so our three year old wouldn't climb up there. And they would all try to climb bookshelves, which is really dangerous.

If that toy was up high, then who is to say that Maddie didn't just toss it when she was playing with it? However, we'll never know because Kate moved it as soon as she found it, supposedly.

Also, if Maddie was in a bed, why couldn't she get up? Parents all over the world have problems with their kids getting in and out of bed in the night. Sometimes they want to play, and often they just want to be with Mom and Dad.

They should have been worried about a three year old in charge of the two year olds. At two, both my boys could climb out of a crib and run away. And they had no sense of danger whatsoever.

These are all scenarios I ponder when I read that none of the kids would "ever" get out of bed. That doesn't seem like something you can predict.

 

[philamena]

Hi and welcome Your English is fabulous :clap:
...


QUESTION: Maybe this has been asked before but do you think that all doctors, especially eye doctors have been put on special alert? I ask because the only way to attempt to disguise her eye would be contacts.

I agree about her English.

Brefie,
I've wondered about that too and low and behold I went into a large beauty supply warehouse yesterday and guess what they sell over the counter? Contact lenses. Yep, different colors, some with patterns. They are 25 bucks a pair and they DO NOT affect your vision. They are purely for cosmetic reasons.

 

[Brefie]

I agree about her English.

Brefie,
I've wondered about that too and low and behold I went into a large beauty supply warehouse yesterday and guess what they sell over the counter? Contact lenses. Yep, different colors, some with patterns. They are 25 bucks a pair and they DO NOT affect your vision. They are purely for cosmetic reasons.

WOW! I am amazed!! you don't need a license to get in the warehouse...or at least if you are purchasing? I can hardly believe it! Crazy@!?!

Jeez, I don't know whether to wish the perps know or don't know about this!

ETA: Thanks for the info