The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Another question

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 14:25

candyfloss wrote:The other thing I find strange about these alleged checks, is that other people checked the McCanns children, and yet they never checked anyone else's when they did theirs. Very odd that.

The others had to go past The McCann appartment to get to their own. It wasn't out of their way.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 14:27

Yes, it would have been a sensible idea for one person to check all the kids, and then only one person would have been away from the table for only a few minutes longer. Instead they were all bobbing up and down like yo yo's. Wonder why that was??

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by MaryB on 05.12.09 14:29

9.30 check. Was it went in and saw three children. Went in and saw two children. Or listened outside the door of the apartment. Or listened at bedroom door and saw no children. I believe all four scenarios have been put forward. Which is the truth.

MaryB

Posts : 204
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 14:32

@MaryB wrote:9.30 check. Was it went in and saw three children. Went in and saw two children. Or listened outside the door of the apartment. Or listened at bedroom door and saw no children. I believe all four scenarios have been put forward. Which is the truth.

Only one scenario has ever been put forward, he opened the door enough to glance in and see the sleeping twins, he did not check that Madeleine was there as he did not step forward enough to stick his head right in the room. assumed all was well.

Reading the files is really helpful I think, as they contain the facts and not the newspapers guessworky nonsense that seems to have confused so many people.

Most people are shocked when they realise how much rubbish they think they know about the case but which turns out to be a load of old twaddle written back when no-one really knew anything and journos were trying to make sense of various leaked stories.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Otium on 05.12.09 14:34

clarity wrote:Perhaps you misunderstood what 'bells ringing' means, it means you have suspicions but if it is simply that you disagree with them on a method of childcare they used then that's not necessarily you stating you have suspicions about them as people, as parents, or that you suspect that they are anything other than all victims of a horrific crime.

I understand now.

I don't understand what relevance it has to what is going on or what it adds to the debate but thanks for sharing that you disagree with half hourly checks.

I do have suspicions about them as people and parents. Purely from the point of their actions and reactions regarding Madeleine disappearing. Just for example why would any parent wash their missing Child's most favourite toy? That alone is beyond me and I am aware that I am going off topic so I will leave that there.

With regard to the half hourly checks, I don't know what checks they actually made but the time of the checks seem to have changed several times. Who or how am I or anyone else to know?

I think that we both agree that people lie to cover things up and IF the McCanns have lied to the times or indeed the nature of their checks, it would be suggestive that they have something to hide. I don't know what they could possibly be hiding because they have already admitted to leaving the children alone and that in itself is bad enough.

Otium

Posts : 64
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 14:42

@Otium wrote:
clarity wrote:Perhaps you misunderstood what 'bells ringing' means, it means you have suspicions but if it is simply that you disagree with them on a method of childcare they used then that's not necessarily you stating you have suspicions about them as people, as parents, or that you suspect that they are anything other than all victims of a horrific crime.

I understand now.

I don't understand what relevance it has to what is going on or what it adds to the debate but thanks for sharing that you disagree with half hourly checks.

I do have suspicions about them as people and parents. Purely from the point of their actions and reactions regarding Madeleine disappearing. Just for example why would any parent wash their missing Child's most favourite toy? That alone is beyond me and I am aware that I am going off topic so I will leave that there.

With regard to the half hourly checks, I don't know what checks they actually made but the time of the checks seem to have changed several times. Who or how am I or anyone else to know?

I think that we both agree that people lie to cover things up and IF the McCanns have lied to the times or indeed the nature of their checks, it would be suggestive that they have something to hide. I don't know what they could possibly be hiding because they have already admitted to leaving the children alone and that in itself is bad enough.

Crikey it's like unravelling a ball of strong with you isn't it, only when one thing is satisfactorally explained, there's always something left in reserve. determined huh?

Parents wash toys all the time, this one had been played with by the other children and tossed about by cadaver/csi dog, I think you'd be hard pushed to find a parent who didn't want to wash it after that. Besides which you have no idea how many of her other toys and possessions have been maintained exactly as she left them which is exactly how it should be.

The times of the checks have not changed, I mean other than when they sat down in the panic and chaos and tried to give a coherent, factual transparent list of the times the children were alone to the police and this took two goes but after that, no changes. Perhaps you are confused by the guesswork printed in the press and reported in the media prior to the files being released?

I have already stated that I would be suspicious of anyone who told lies in this sort of situation, this would make me think they might be covering something up but so far nothing like that has emerged, if anything the entire group appear to have been extremely open about the checks, who did what and estimated times to the best of their ability, which is as you'd expect from people with nothing to hide.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Albert Hedghog on 05.12.09 17:57

clarity wrote:Only one scenario has ever been put forward, he opened the door enough to glance in and see the sleeping twins, he did not check that Madeleine was there as he did not step forward enough to stick his head right in the room. assumed all was well.


Is that what he says on the McCann's own documentary ? (you might need to nip off to watch it again before answering)

Albert Hedghog

Posts : 9
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Clarity needed

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 20:56

clarity wrote:There's no evidence they haven't been anything other than completely honest throughout this entire process smith, I have no idea why you want to pretend they haven't been, why aren't the facts as they are enough for you, why do you want to rewrite what went on, what do you gain from that sort of pretence?

Clarity, I don't want to convince you of anything. The days for convincing people are now over and the end game begins on December 11.

You can argue about motivation and what you think for as long as you think others are interested. I repeat, the evidence is quite clear and unambiguous: the child was checked just once at 9.10 by the father and was never checked again.

It's funny having to spell out these things but here we go:

For the period 8.40 onwards on May 3 2007: David Payne does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Fiona Payne does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Russel O' Brian does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Jane Tanner does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Rachael Oldfield does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Mathew Oldfield does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do; Jane Webster does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so.

Gerry McCann, according to the witness statements, did check Madeleine, at 9.10. Kate McCann did not do so.

Both parents claimed on May 4 that the child was checked every half hour between 8.40 and 10.PM

It is at this point that people start shouting "boring" etc. Don't shout it at me: those are the facts.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 21:19

Distort the facts all you please, Smith, it proves nothing.

The "Game" won't be over until Madeleine is found.

Amaral is just a great nuisance who will be entirely responsible for his own downfall.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Hello otium

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 21:29

Yes, hello. I'm sorry I wasn't around to acknowledge your post earlier.

I think the insults etc - here I have to pause, because as you may be aware I have a sort of reverse fan club beyond this forum but in contact with it, and they don't like me to post more than five lines or so before shouting "boring". So fan club could you leave me to post to otium? Ta.

Pause over.

The insults on both sides are a bore but, it seems, inevitable. Leaving aside the whole Mr Bennett affair, they are at maximum pitch now because the second phase in the McCann case, which began in July 2008 with the release of the case papers, is drawing to a close. Those who are committed to one side or another, including me, have a lot invested in the future. Whether my friends the pros really convinced themselves that somehow bad Mr Amaral, being a stage villain with a dodgy moustache (that's how the pro-McCann tabloids like to picture him) would pull out or plead guilty to being the greatest criminal of the 21st century, I do not know.
My understanding is that he will see this through to the end.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by preciousramotswe on 05.12.09 21:33

The pros never said he would pull out or plead guilty.

But the antis have been saying for over a year that the McCanns would NEVER take anyone to court because they were guilty as hell and frightened a court would reveal 'the truth'.

How wrong they were, eh?

preciousramotswe

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 21:41

I expect Gonzalo Amaral will see this through to his bitter end. He is not only guilty of libel and defamation, according to the summation of The Portuguese Public Prosecutor. He has also committed an act of gross professional misconduct.

If it wasn't for the enormous damage he has done to The McCann's search for their daughter, I would feel desperately sorry for him.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Possibly

Post by Guest on 05.12.09 21:42

badmanners wrote:The pros never said he would pull out or plead guilty.

But the antis have been saying for over a year that the McCanns would NEVER take anyone to court because they were guilty as hell and frightened a court would reveal 'the truth'.

How wrong they were, eh?

Badmanners hello. I don't know about the others but certainly I have always said that the parents will never go into court - ie into the box etc. I may well be wrong, as I was about my conviction that the case would not be shelved. Well, we shall see.

Having said that, and trying at this early stage of proceedings before we start insulting each other to try and find some sort of common ground, I would be delighted if Amaral & the McCanns could deal with the case in open court: at least then there would be some sort of judicial ruling rather than this state of virtual civil war between the two sides where nothing is ever decided and only opinions and emnity reign.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by littlepixie on 06.12.09 0:14

I have never gone to the pub and left my kids in the house on their own and come back to "check" every half hour or whatever - has anyone else?

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 06.12.09 0:25

of course not littlepixie.
no sane person would.
people will not change their heartfelt opinions on this, despite the cult's best attempts to 'normalise' it.

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 06.12.09 11:02

@littlepixie wrote:I have never gone to the pub and left my kids in the house on their own and come back to "check" every half hour or whatever - has anyone else?

I haven't been on an airship but yet I accept the fact that the Hindenburg did explode killing dozens of people, what's your point?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 06.12.09 13:20

how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 06.12.09 13:24

@Ruby wrote:how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

nothing obscure about it, it's an analogy.

just because someone has never experienced something onself does not mean the experience does not exist.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Not many replies to analyse

Post by Guest on 06.12.09 21:32

Of course there's there's much more fun going on in the other threads, isn't there? Talking about this stuff is so boring, isn't it?

Anyway I've had a quick look over the replies and apart from one person who said s/he had her suspicions about why the parents did not tell the truth in their police statements, it is apparently not being accepted on this thread that the parents did not tell the truth!

I have seen much dishonesty on the forums since summer 2007 but this one is a real eye opener.

I gave the names of each of the Tapas 9 and pointed out that only one of the nine claimed to have checked Madeleine. The other eight did not claim to have checked Madeleine at any time. There was only one check.

It seems that this fact, and fact it is, is simply too hot for any supporters of the McCanns to handle: they simply won't accept it, let alone deal with my question about why the parents didn't tell the truth in their statements.

Faced with that there really is nothing more to be said.

Except this: facts have their own existence - denying them won't alter them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 06.12.09 22:05

clarity wrote:
@Ruby wrote:how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

nothing obscure about it, it's an analogy.

just because someone has never experienced something onself does not mean the experience does not exist.


clarity, I am sure there a "lots" of parents who go out and leave their kids alone, even tiny kids. The point is though these parents obviously don't care for their children, but are only thinking of themselves. What do you think would happen if neighbours reported parents who left their kids every night for a week, who went to a pub directly opposite the house, and could see their house from the pub. Im sure the social services, or police, wouldn't pat them on the back and say "it was well within the bounds of responsible parenting."

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 11:20

candyfloss wrote:
clarity wrote:
@Ruby wrote:how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

nothing obscure about it, it's an analogy.

just because someone has never experienced something onself does not mean the experience does not exist.


clarity, I am sure there a "lots" of parents who go out and leave their kids alone, even tiny kids. The point is though these parents obviously don't care for their children, but are only thinking of themselves. What do you think would happen if neighbours reported parents who left their kids every night for a week, who went to a pub directly opposite the house, and could see their house from the pub. Im sure the social services, or police, wouldn't pat them on the back and say "it was well within the bounds of responsible parenting."

I doubt the police would care but the way social services is going again they would be forced to issue a letter stating that it is inappropriate in the same way as it is inapropriate for children to make their own way to school even in the later months of primary school when it is actually safest for them to do so in preparation for the sometimes longer travel to high school. Of course a massive percentage of parents will ignore such warnings because they know their own child, the geography and they know how much better it is in the long run for children to be practised in such things.


Perhaps one day you could sit and make a list of the things routinely done by caring parents but that would be at odds with social services advice, could be an eye opener. It is essentially what most parents did in their head when hearing about Madeleine and that resulted in the outpouring of shock because yes it's true we have all done something similar, perhaps not a holiday resort, perhas not a tapas bar, perhaos not half hourly checks but we have all taken calculated risks and 99.99% of the time it's perfectly fine.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Clarencity

Post by Ruby on 07.12.09 11:32

well if Madeleine had been cared for adequately at three, she would have had the chance to walk to primary school.

the situations you mention have sod all to do with it, just yet another weak attempt at normalising what the McCanns did.

people aren't buying it, nor will they ever, but keep going, i like to see your efforts. never mind

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 11:38

@Ruby wrote:well if Madeleine had been cared for adequately at three, she would have had the chance to walk to primary school.

the situations you mention have sod all to do with it, just yet another weak attempt at normalising what the McCanns did.

people aren't buying it, nor will they ever, but keep going, i like to see your efforts. never mind

well the situation had everything to do with it, parents make decisions based on what they know, it is self evident that Madeleines parents did not know there was a risk she could be abducted from her bed that night.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 07.12.09 11:47

pull the other one - it's got fucking bells on.

there were plenty of other risks and there's no way they wouldn't be aware of that.

see you've carefully manouvred there to say 'risk of abduction' (who does that remind me of?) and ended up with a very unnatural sounding statement to add to the McCollection..

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 11:51

@Ruby wrote:pull the other one - it's got fucking bells on.

they were doctors.

the portuguese prosecuter stated it and after seeing all the evidence, reading all the statements and knowing his own country, he should know.

I'm not sure why a doctor more than any other parent would know more about the crime stats of portugal though, perhaps you can explain.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum