The McCanns' Own Words

[fabgod]

I think that in the very early days, the nation was behind them, everybody wanted to help.
Think of it this way, there will always be people out there who want to find fault in anything or everything, Where there is support there will always be an element of dissent.

If you dont give the haters anything to shout about, then their shouts become weak and the dissenters dont want to be seen or heard as weak.

The minute you give hate a foothold, you open the floodgates. I think that some of "team McCanns" actions were misguided, I would put that down to whoever is or was handling their PR.
As soon as we were hearing about big events in the future and wider agenda and so on, I feel it gave a totally wrong impression.

Being made arguidos obviously didnt help and neither id the papers coverage of the case.
Once that had started it was a slippery slope, the haters had a foothold and as everyone knows, the brits like to knock their own, especially when it seems that they are successful.
As much as Clarence thinks he can manipulate public opinion, he is failing, there is no doubt about that,
Whilst people in the UK probably do support the McCanns in the majority, I think that whereas people used to simply believe, now many seem to say "there is something not right"

I cannot believe that the tapas friends, families, governments, Influential people etc are all lying to cover up a death of a child (not that that child would not be important)
I can see how the theories grow however.
I cant see for a moment, one of my friends coming up to me on holiday saying the have killed their little girl and we are all going to cover it up, who would support that?

But, don't think its as cut and dried as someone walking in and taking her away, I really dont.

 

[brit1981]

Brit, Ok, before you tell me I am rubbishing others opinions, tell me where I said the window couldnt be closed from the outside?
I asked for clarity if the windows could be opened from the outside!

Post 105 in this thread you said "It wouldnt be possible for the window to be closed from the outside so that would eliminate the possibility of an abductor closing them on his/her exit."

Regards Jane Tanners statement, I am not saying 7 other people lied at all, I am not questioning her leaving the table or checking on her children, its a witness statement!

Do you think the police believe every word that is spoken to them, do they not, look at that information, cross reference it, see what fits and what doesnt?

Its no use trying to look at a case if we cannot question anything in that case, its pointless,
How many criminals must have said "I didnt do it"? yet were convicted of that very crime?

I am looking at Jane Tanners statements because they are the only statements that mention the abductor, Jane Tanner is a close friend of KAte McCann who was a suspect or arguida in the case.
There is a possibility that Jane Tanner saw exactly what she said at that time, but for me the statements and susbsequent interviews cast doubt on it having happened exactly that way.

I cannot see how McCAnn/Wilkins did not see Jane Tanner walk past them on a quiet evening, on the same side of the road and that is from statements, not from arguments between them.

I will have to double check, but I am not sure kate was a particulary close friend. I know some of the group did nto know each other well at all.
But jane had to either have left thta table, or seven people lied about her leaving which begs the questions if she did leave the table where did she go that did not mena walking past gerry, and if she did not why would the others lie and Gerry tell the truth? These are questions that need to be addressed before we can just dismiss Jane. By that I do not mean dismiss her sighting as that of the abductor, because it could have been anyone, but I mean to say to dismiss her statement
maybe you are very observant, but I know people could (and have) walked past me without me noticing, especially if I was chatting to someone, was reading etc?

I do not think the Mccanns were involved, not ebcause of any personal opinion. i do not know them, have no idea if I would like them etc, and I do not think having an education bars soemone from lying or committing a crime.

For an intruder to be involved, they had to watch the flat,then walk in through one fo the two entrances, pick madeleine up and leave again. Unless the police search the home and interrogate every signle person who was within an hours radius they would not have a clue who they were or what they did with madeleine.

For the parents to be involved Madeleine had to somehow come to fatal harm in the flat in three hour period. During this period Gerry spent an hour and a hald playing tennis and showered and changed, and Kate stayed at home but was also seen at dinner showered and changed. During the remaing time they had to decide not to help their daughter, decide to cover up her death, dump the body of their eldest child in a foreign village they did not know well (noting they did not have a car or obvious access to a shovel), but somewhere that in five years she has never ever been found, come up with a cover story, get some friends to lie for them too. The after this they had to go and eat dinner as if everything was normal, and then suddenly act distraught at ten o'clock when they raised the alarm. They also had to ensure not one shred of evidence was ever found.They then launched a media awareness campaign to help find madeleine, petitioned the government to reopen the case after it was shelved rather than letting it stay shelved with no-one looking into it anymore, and keep to the same story for over five years.


Therefore I think an intruder just walked in and out.

 

[fabgod]

Brit re you comment on my post 105, I mean closed as in closed not just pushed to, I dont have to start dotting the i's and crossing the t's as well do I?

For clarity by closed, I mean close as in fastened, latched, locked, on a catch etc.
This is getting pathetic!

RE for the parents being involved, the parents would not have to kill the child or have "allowed" her to come to harm would they?
For example she could have been sold, she could have been given to someone.
The parents may have been involved in some sort of scam a little like was attempted with Shannon Matthews (but hopefully carried out a little better)

There is always that scale thing, ask someone to lie for you over a death, not many if any will agree unless they are complicit,
Ask someone to lie over money, you will get some takers especially if they get a "cut"
Ask someone to lie for you over something that is not life threatening and potentially helpful to the persons involved, your odds of acceptance are going up.

I dont think we can state anything as fact or elimminate anybody, we will all have gut feelings and instinct but that doesnt cut it in a court of law, its all about the proof

 

[brit1981]

nnnnnn

Brit re you comment on my post 105, I mean closed as in closed not just pushed to, I dont have to start dotting the i's and crossing the t's as well do I?

For clarity by closed, I mean close as in fastened, latched, locked, on a catch etc.
This is getting pathetic!
Ok I did not know you meant latched. But was there any actual latch system, somewindows just close automatically and do not need to be fastened from the inside or anything. But again the window was open according to witnesses other than Kate, so the whether or not it could be fully closed from the outside is a moot point.

RE for the parents being involved, the parents would not have to kill the child or have "allowed" her to come to harm would they?
For example she could have been sold, she could have been given to someone.
The parents may have been involved in some sort of scam a little like was attempted with Shannon Matthews (but hopefully carried out a little better)

Even if she was sold or hidden (again somewhere she was not found), they still had the same timeline to do it in, and get the same people to lie for them. And if it was a scam, why set up the fund (yes it is a private company but in the law in england charities cannot just be set up to benefit one specific individuel or a few individuels), they could have just kept the money in their own bank accounts as it was given to them before the fund was set up?

There is always that scale thing, ask someone to lie for you over a death, not many if any will agree unless they are complicit,
Ask someone to lie over money, you will get some takers especially if they get a "cut"
Ask someone to lie for you over something that is not life threatening and potentially helpful to the persons involved, your odds of acceptance are going up.
But there is a big difference between lying over money and lying over friends selling their child. And their friend also put the compensation they received into the fund, so they cannot be finanically motivated. I cannot see many normal people with no criminal history suddenly agreeing to help cover up friends selling their child and helping stage an abduction and keeping up with the lie so exactly for so long. besides this sort of thing would involve financial transactions, contact with the person she was being given to etc. These were never found COLOR]

I dont think we can state anything as fact or elimminate anybody, we will all have gut feelings and instinct but that doesnt cut it in a court of law, its all about the proof

 

[gord]

For me there is only two scenarios either it was stranger kidnap/abduction or the parents and some or all of the Tapas lot were involved in either death or disposal- I take it we are discounting alien involvement

I too have been following this from the beginning and have posted in various forums on and off - In the initial stages I did think that it must be the parents - and so did the PJ.

I have yet to see any logical theory in how the body could have been disposed off without leaving massive clues . I have seen plenty of theories involving goverment coverups , ambassadors covering evidence, the FSS doctoring DNA forensics , the nannies lying as they were involved in some sexual group with the Mccanns to teh more lurid and disgusting that just doesnt bear scrutiny

Conspiracy theories are ten a penny in this case.and aI dont believe for a minute that all teh Tapas lot decided to risk their freedom and life to lie for teh Mcanns So then the logical way is to examine the abductor theory - it is the only one that in my mind makes any sense

We all know that unfortunately there are evil people out there who do prey on kids. I wish it wasnt so - It only takes minutes and I mean minutes for a sleeping child to be lifted out a bed - handed out of a window or even easier an open front door - and the into the boot of a car - read about the scottish killer Robert Black who kidnaped many girls and never left a jot of evidence - he only got caught by complete fluke as he was spotted lifting a girl and putting her in his van

I di believe tha a clever and very quiet abductor ccould have got into via teh patio and then either handed the girl out of the window or even better walk out the front door. They would have been in spain before the PJ even arrived on the scene

all that was as left was an empty bed. whoever Tanner saw we dont know - nut for goodness sake we have a witness seeing a girl being carried at around the time of the abduction.

To question Tanner is to say she is lying and then we are back to the same old argument about why did she get involved why did she lie - what was the motive

 

[fabgod]

I don't think the PJ ever really wavered from that suspicion from what I have read in the reports.
Whether that suspicion is valid is unknown and will stay that way until either Madeleine is found or somebody speaks out somewhere.

Regarding Jane Tanner and her statement, I think its valid to look at, it is inconsistent even with Gerry McCanns positioning seconds before the sighting.
There are questions over how much could be seen in the available light and so on, so if that is going over the same old ground, so be it.

To simply state that an abductor could have taken, is fine, its plausible but has no evidence apart from Jane Tanners statement, which , again, is from a personal friend of the family involved.

There is simply nothing that can eliminate either stranger abduction or family invovlement (or friend involvement).
Simply looking at what is there and seeing if there is a different approach or angle, rather than being set on one theory.

 

[JodyMT]

Sorry if this answer is somewhere that I haven't looked, but does anyone know if the McCann's are still practicing medicine? I had read somewhere that one of them said this case had ruined their career, but that was some time ago.

 

[rashomon]

Rashamon,
the above is not true, look at the files. the window sills did not have an ounce of lichen on them, they were white and smooth. It is clear from the photos.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

The above link shows the windows at the time - no lichen whatsoever.

The photos are neither close-ups nor sufficiently enlarged to show that.

Can you give a link to a photo showing sufficiently enlarged close-ups of the window sills?

And the shutters and windows could be opened from the inside too.

Of course they could be opened from the inside. (I assume you meant to write "outside").

It has been tried and tested. Also in the files the cleaner states she caught journalists trying to get in the bedroom this way so they were able to open it from the outside

Could you give link to the cleaner's exact statement? For "trying to get in" does not mean they were able to open the window. They could just have tried to tamper with it to get it open. Or have tried to climb inside because they saw it open (the cleaner having opened it).

But it is a moot point anyway, as there were two other entry points the unlocked patio doors, and the front door which according to previous occupants could be opened from the outside even when it was locked and had the key in it. So for all anyone knows the intruder came in, quickly opened the window and shutter as an emergency escape route, but as they did not need it exited from the front door.

It was the McCanns who came up with the "forced entry through the window" story. They later backpedaled; imo this was when they realized they had made a mistake in presenting it like that. For no signs of forced entry were found.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Sorry if this answer is somewhere that I haven't looked, but does anyone know if the McCann's are still practicing medicine? I had read somewhere that one of them said this case had ruined their career, but that was some time ago.

Gerry McCann is a consulting specialist at some hospital, his career is doing well.

Kate McCann has (belatedly) given up her part time GP practice and has concentrated on working for the "No Stone Unturned" fund and has recently accepted a post as spokesperson for a missing child charity...a questionable appointment indeed when you consider her only skill set in this regard is her ability to successfully lose her own child.

:banghead:

:moo:

 

[brit1981]

rashamon,
If you look in the files via the link I posted you can see close ups of the women using red dust on the window sill for fingerprinting. There was no lichen shown, just the red dust from the fingerprinting. You can also get the cleaner's statements from there.

I think it was the media who claimed the mccanns said it had been forced, there was a lot of this at the time. remember the media claiming that Kate had said cuddle cat was placed on a high shelf above the child's bed - there was no shelf). From what the mccanns themselves have said, it was that Kate found the window open, and they found it could be opened from the outside. To be honest I do not think whether the window could have been opened from the outside or not is here nor there. It could be that an intruder opened the window from the inside (it would have taken just seconds, and provided a quick emergency escape route if he got caught), or it could even have been opened innocently by a cleaner in the day, and no-one noticed because the blinds were shut (kate said the only reason she noticed was because of a breeze moving the blinds). There were two other entry points to the flat which could have been used.

The PJ have said they do not believe the mccanns or murat were involved (it is just Amaral who sticks to this, but he is a convicted criminal with a ruined career who only worked on the case for a few months, and even then did not investigate directly), and scotland yard have said they believe it to be a stranger abduction.

The fact is for the parents or a friend to be involved it wold involve several people lying and telling the same story for several years. It just does not appear feasible, that either between five forty and six, or seven thirty and eight thirty Gerry and kate were able to somehow dispose of their daughter and convince several other people to help them. She either died suddenly and they just disposed of how somewhere where she was never found (in under an hour in a place they did nto know etc), or like someone here suggested they gave her to someone else, but even so they still only had a short amount of time, and no-one has been able to give a reason for why a couple would give away their eldest daughter and stage an abduction. If they wanted to do this why not move abraod (they had lived outside of the UK before), and tell relatives she had died. I woudl think faking a funeral might be easier than all of this. Plus why did they campaign to get the police to look at the case again. If you had committed a crime, and got away with it woudld you campaign to get the police to reinvestigate the crime, or would you just leave them?

Gerry is still a cardiologist, Kate never went back to work as a part-time GP locum, she never had a practice. Kate is still however a registered doctor with no bar to practicing again. She is also ambassador for missing people.

 

[gord]

I have never understood why this point about who said the windows were jemmied is so important. It would be perfectly normal in the confusion of the first moments of discovery when seeing the open window to assume that they might have been forced - It would be my reaction too

That is why police take the emotion out and look at evidence and go from there . If the windows were not forced then they have to assume that they were opened from outside or indeed inside

again I dont see why this is even an issue

 

[brit1981]

They have never been able to actually confirm he did say that. Imagine the confusion on that call, his sister said he was in huge distress, do you really think the sister was able to gather exactly if he had talked about the windows being jemmied, or someone just getting in from outside. There are also reports that stated the mccanns had told relatives thta cuddle cat was on a non-existant shelf. many of the initial media reports turned out to contain pure fabrications. But like Gord says, imagien the confusion. You come back find a window open, you are certain you left it closed, you do not know your front door is unsecure and you beleive you did not see anyone use the patio doors, you are in the panic and confusion that follows going to think the window was forced until you later inspect it and find it could be opened from the outside. Plus you are not going to give a conscise accountto a relative on the 'phone.

 

[fabgod]

Obviously the Portuguese Police investigating thought differently, Paulo Ribeiro, who took over the case from Amaral even did a reconstruction of the window access on 29th october 2007

 

[brit1981]

Obviously the Portuguese Police investigating thought differently, Paulo Ribeiro, who took over the case from Amaral even did a reconstruction of the window access on 29th october 2007

Thought differently to whom?

It does nto matter if the window could be opened from the outside or not, the front door turned out not to be secure so the window was not needed as an entry point

 

[fabgod]

They have never been able to actually confirm he did say that. Imagine the confusion on that call, his sister said he was in huge distress, do you really think the sister was able to gather exactly if he had talked about the windows being jemmied, or someone just getting in from outside. There are also reports that stated the mccanns had told relatives thta cuddle cat was on a non-existant shelf. many of the initial media reports turned out to contain pure fabrications. But like Gord says, imagien the confusion. You come back find a window open, you are certain you left it closed, you do not know your front door is unsecure and you beleive you did not see anyone use the patio doors, you are in the panic and confusion that follows going to think the window was forced until you later inspect it and find it could be opened from the outside. Plus you are not going to give a conscise accountto a relative on the 'phone.

I agree, the confusion was obviously a factor as was the distress and panic,
However, Jon Corner reported that Kate McCann telephoned him in the middle of the night and said
"they have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl"

A quote from Gerry McCann and then independently another quote from Kate McCann adds weight to the theory that that is a fact they were keen to pass on?

 

[fabgod]

Thought differently to whom?

It does nto matter if the window could be opened from the outside or not, the front door turned out not to be secure so the window was not needed as an entry point

oops sorry, didnt quote Gord,
I am talking about the shutter being jemmied not the window being opened

 

[gord]

I agree, the confusion was obviously a factor as was the distress and panic,
However, Jon Corner reported that Kate McCann telephoned him in the middle of the night and said
"they have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl"

A quote from Gerry McCann and then independently another quote from Kate McCann adds weight to the theory that that is a fact they were keen to pass on?

I understand what point you are making - but just cant see to what benefit it would have made - the shutters were either forced or not and any detailed investigation by the PJ would have shown this either way

The Mccanns are not mind manipulators - it as if they thought lets tell everyone the shutters were forced and it will be true !

also at the time there was so much rubbish being printed by the Uk media that to try and use any if it as verbatim is impossible.

 

[brit1981]

I understand what point you are making - but just cant see to what benefit it would have made - the shutters were either forced or not and any detailed investigation by the PJ would have shown this either way

The Mccanns are not mind manipulators - it as if they thought lets tell everyone the shutters were forced and it will be true !

also at the time there was so much rubbish being printed by the Uk media that to try and use any if it as verbatim is impossible.

I think the UK media have a lot to answer for - remember Chris Jefferies they actually got a conviction for contempt of court for the claims they made there, remember how they messed up the abduction trial of levi bellfield so much that it could not go ahead. I hope the leveson inquiry will make them think twice about writing such rubbish.

 

[fabgod]

I think the UK media have a lot to answer for - remember Chris Jefferies they actually got a conviction for contempt of court for the claims they made there, remember how they messed up the abduction trial of levi bellfield so much that it could not go ahead. I hope the leveson inquiry will make them think twice about writing such rubbish.

Obviously the Levenson Inquiry hasnt made any difference as yet, you only have to have a quick look at the Tia Sharp case in the UK press to see that!

 

[fabgod]

I understand what point you are making - but just cant see to what benefit it would have made - the shutters were either forced or not and any detailed investigation by the PJ would have shown this either way

The Mccanns are not mind manipulators - it as if they thought lets tell everyone the shutters were forced and it will be true !

also at the time there was so much rubbish being printed by the Uk media that to try and use any if it as verbatim is impossible.

I totally agree with you, unfortunately, if we are to show an interest in the case though, we dont have anything but the press to rely on for information when cases are developing.
The respective police forces are not at liberty to divulge anything and that has to be respected and understood, its a bit of a double edged sword as far as I can see it, in that, really, we should not be given anything at all as far as insight or information in an active case goes, we have no real right to be involved it is a police matter, however, with the way the world is changing, and the ever increasing ways of information being passed (24 hour news, the internet, mobile phones and so on), it has become an almost transparent world in that everyone can be researched and convicted on "hearsay".

Personally, I think it would be better for there to be no reporting apart from the official police statements, end the media circus' and let the forces get on with their jobs, no more news helicopters in the sky stuff, but just as everything else in the world now, we seem to be given everything on a plate,

I do think that the involvement of people like Clarence Mitchell and PR managers only adds to the confusion