Re: When / What made you first question this "story"?

by lj 24.09.13 19:36

ultimaThule wrote:
lj wrote:
From: ultimaThule Today at 5:43 pm

I was disbelieving from the get-go. A stranger jemmied open Iberian style shuttered windows of an apartment to break in and steal a child and no-one heard or saw this act, nor did the 2 toddlers the thief left behind wake up during the commission of this crime? nah

The absence of any contrition on the part of the parents for leaving their 3 small children alone in an unfamiliar environment while they enjoyed adult time out of sight and earshot, together with their continued justification of this indefensible act of child neglect, said far more than their weasel words and false posturings.

Fwiw, I only recently came to realise these neglectful parents hadn't left a hall light or any form of nightlight on for their children and for some reason I find this particularly appalling.
Don't forget that one of the other "mothers" from a sick child did not want to do the checks because she found the dark "too scary". Appalling is a too friendly word imo.

You have every right to take issue with my choice of words, lj, and I thank you for providing another piece of information which I wasn't aware of.

On reflection, 'appalling' is far too polite and inadequate a word to describe the lack of care and concern the McCanns, and their equally despicable partners in crime, evinced for the welfare and wellbeing of their very young children and it's an outrageous affront to all rightminded and responsible parents and carers that, to date, none of them have been brought to book on criminal charges of neglect and cruelty to those children on multiple occasions.

Sorry, ultima, I did want to criticize you, but these people make my blood boil. Can you imagine a mother, who tells about the most heart-wrenching remark a child can make, "why didn't you come when we were crying"? and then makes faces like this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by lj 24.09.13 19:41

plebgate wrote:
lj wrote:
From: ultimaThule Today at 5:43 pm

I was disbelieving from the get-go. A stranger jemmied open Iberian style shuttered windows of an apartment to break in and steal a child and no-one heard or saw this act, nor did the 2 toddlers the thief left behind wake up during the commission of this crime? nah

The absence of any contrition on the part of the parents for leaving their 3 small children alone in an unfamiliar environment while they enjoyed adult time out of sight and earshot, together with their continued justification of this indefensible act of child neglect, said far more than their weasel words and false posturings.

Fwiw, I only recently came to realise these neglectful parents hadn't left a hall light or any form of nightlight on for their children and for some reason I find this particularly appalling.
Don't forget that one of the other "mothers" from a sick child did not want to do the checks because she found the dark "too scary". Appalling is a too friendly word imo.
Yes and the parents of the child also went out to dinner leaving the baby in a diarrhoea filled nappy. Well that's how the story goes.

Indeed, and that same mother said about her sick child: we would only listen if she didn't scream her head off. I truly hope that all these people will get senile at a young age, and when they are all dependend on other people have them scream for almost 2 hours, or leave them in their dirty diapers until they scream their head off.

But then, I am not a meek christian soul, who can forgive like Kate. I like to see wrongdoing punished.

by Monty Heck 24.09.13 20:53

The fact that this happened in PDL in the off season. Knowing it as a safe and chid friendly resort the roving predatory paedophile tale just didn't seem to fit.
This turned to disgust after the first few days when the self justificatory media began to appear with no sign of contrition for leaving the children alone.
Appearances to camera without conviction, which didn't ring true were concerning.
The fighting fund was a head scratcher - fighting who, what and why raise money? Why concern yourself with raising money and travel around Europe when your child is still missing?
Reading on the plane journey to PDL in summer 2007 the infamous "it was just like dining in your back yard" felt like the last straw but more was to come
Hearing in the resort that the jemmied shutters was bull and the McCs were constantly attended by hangers on, at the pool or jogging and playing tennis while the media were portraying everything in a very different light was mind boggling.

Cuddle cat constantly on display and peeping out of bags to the point of being offensive
The twins back in creche straight away and then left with the Hubbards put the final nail in the coffin of crediblity

by Seek truth 24.09.13 21:10

galena wrote:
Seek truth wrote:JANE TANNER!!! How she never told them, let's go search that way!

But then ignored the whole thing, it was after the sniffer dogs and reading KATES BOOK that I believed they were badly guilty. Because I didn't believe, I then searched online and found his book etc, but it didn't convince me.

I only read Amarals book a long time after but ignored it , as I thought the conclusion was just an opinion.

Although from the start I saw them behaving strangely on tv, but I still helped search for Madeleine. I stopped searching for madeleine and searched for answers online because of Jane Tanner and the police and papers saying things differently.
My mum was - and is - a staunch believer in the McCanns but even she was puzzled by the Jane Tanner evidence once she saw it on Crimewatch - I think she believed it would be definitive proof of the abduction but after all the fuss it didn't really amount to anything at all ...

Your mum found Jane a Tanners story hard to believe BUT she is still a McCann believer?

Perhaps she needs to read more from the files, may be their British police interviews, where they and their friends reply Yeah, but no, but yeah, you know, very often.
Or read Kate's book, she avoids a lot we need to know and compare it with the files, or may be just shoe her all the pictures of her laughing , even on the day of the trial before entering the courtroom, pity the judge never asked who was laughing!

by Liz Eagles 25.09.13 11:06

I answered the title of this topic on another thread after I joined the forum two years ago.

Times have moved on and justice for Madeleine has still not been found. Many, many people have made money out of Madeleine's disappearance. You only need to see the testimonials of those in receipt of money from the Fund who use Madeleine's name and her case to promote themselves and their business.

There's nothing wrong with making a living but there is something seriously morally and ethically wrong with attaching Madeleine's name to promote your business imo as none of these 'professionals' have brought in a result.

Many, many professionals who are/were paid from state coffers both in Portugal and UK to find her just received their salary and put in that extra mile. Many, many people who are paid nothing at all still fight for justice for this little girl.

I doubt that Madeleine is on the desk of every hired professional each morning. Madeleine is another case and whether her name is mentioned in a civil court for libel against her parents or on a website for some two bit company or the offices of a reputation manager she is used. None of the collective, highly paid privately hired professionals (never mind who paid them) have achieved anything other than a paid invoice.

Sad isn't it.

by whmon 27.09.13 18:11

For me it was the earrings. The first time they appeared on TV I wondered how on earth she could have even thought about wearing earrings. Then, I noticed that every day she was wearing different earrings meaning she was taking time to select them in the morning meaning that her 'missing' child was not at the forefront of her mind.

Later, when I discovered that MBM's younger siblings were twins things became as clear as glass (I've already spoken of my early life as an elder sibling of twins at length.)

by tedless 27.09.13 21:35

Back in May 2007 my first child had been born just a few days earlier. I remember feeling horrified at what the family were going through but then I could not understand the easy acceptance of them leaving their children alone. It was a case that interested me and I remember watching the documentary then last year for some reason I googled them and came across Hi de Ho's films on you tube which then led me to the files. For me it is the shutters they claimed that the shutters had been jemmied or even just opened allowing Maddie to be snatched but this has been proved as impossible. Then if that is impossible then the family have lied.

I also feel Gerry going straight outside and testing the shutters and not looking for Maddie suggests that maybe the open shutter was done by kate at 10 pm, and had not been part of the pre planning.

Finally the fact that they and their friends refused to return to Portugal for the reconstruction. They use the term no stone unturned but then refuse to take part in something which could maybe help find her, I find that staggering.

With reference to GA I have never read his book. So he has in no way influenced my thought processes it has all been down to their actions and what I read in the files.

by Guest 27.09.13 21:38

tedless wrote:Back in May 2007 my first child had been born just a few days earlier. I remember feeling horrified at what the family were going through but then I could not understand the easy acceptance of them leaving their children alone. It was a case that interested me and I remember watching the documentary then last year for some reason I googled them and came across Hi de Ho's films on you tube which then led me to the files. For me it is the shutters they claimed that the shutters had been jemmied or even just opened allowing Maddie to be snatched but this has been proved as impossible. Then if that is impossible then the family have lied.

I also feel Gerry going straight outside and testing the shutters and not looking for Maddie suggests that maybe the open shutter was done by kate at 10 pm, and had not been part of the pre planning.

Finally the fact that they and their friends refused to return to Portugal for the reconstruction. They use the term no stone unturned but then refuse to take part in something which could maybe help find her, I find that staggering.

With reference to GA I have never read his book. So he has in no way influenced my thought processes it has all been down to their actions and what I read in the files.

It's here on this forum tedless, each thread for a different chapter, so easy to read and come back to, worth a read.

by tedless 27.09.13 22:49

candyfloss wrote:
tedless wrote:Back in May 2007 my first child had been born just a few days earlier. I remember feeling horrified at what the family were going through but then I could not understand the easy acceptance of them leaving their children alone. It was a case that interested me and I remember watching the documentary then last year for some reason I googled them and came across Hi de Ho's films on you tube which then led me to the files. For me it is the shutters they claimed that the shutters had been jemmied or even just opened allowing Maddie to be snatched but this has been proved as impossible. Then if that is impossible then the family have lied.

I also feel Gerry going straight outside and testing the shutters and not looking for Maddie suggests that maybe the open shutter was done by kate at 10 pm, and had not been part of the pre planning.

Finally the fact that they and their friends refused to return to Portugal for the reconstruction. They use the term no stone unturned but then refuse to take part in something which could maybe help find her, I find that staggering.

With reference to GA I have never read his book. So he has in no way influenced my thought processes it has all been down to their actions and what I read in the files.
It's here on this forum tedless, each thread for a different chapter, so easy to read and come back to, worth a read.

thanks

by sallypelt 28.09.13 12:38

When this story first broke, and within a short period of time, people were beginning to question the parents of MM, I can remember thinking to myself, how can parents go out that evening in the knowledge that their daughter was dead. Parents just couldn't do that. That thought stayed with me for a long time, even when the evidence was stacking up against them. However, Fiona Payne's statement to Leicester police had me thinking about Kate's state of mind.

QUOTE

Fiona Payne to Leicestershire Police speaking of what Kate McCann told her at the dinner table on the night Madeleine was reported as missing regarding leaving the patio door unlocked:

“She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘ Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or erm, locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up.’

END

Now WHY would KM bring up such a subject on the night that MM disappeared? They had left the three children on previous nights, so why worry about locked or unlocked doors at this late stage into the holiday? This told me that KM already knew that Madeleine was no longer with us, and she was laying the foundation for what was to come.

by aniandr 29.09.13 1:02

The appeal kate maked leaves me with the impression that she got a manual, she reads the words....but the heart is missing. Never heard of GA book until recently.

by Rufus T 29.09.13 15:45

It was one of the very early news reports, on Sky I think, I was in a bar and the sound was off but the facial expressions and body language just screamed we are hiding something. When I did eventually hear them speak it just seemed to confirm my initial reaction.

by Prehensile 29.09.13 15:59

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An illusion? Why not in daylight?

There is a member on here called Smoke and mirrors, how apt.

by Smokeandmirrors 29.09.13 16:21

Prehensile wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An illusion? Why not in daylight?

There is a member on here called Smoke and mirrors, how apt.

:wink4:

by aniandr 29.09.13 17:48

Its just...they do allthe right things. The way they look, the way kate says the words. It reminds me of a realy old episodefrom dynasty where krystal appeal for her missing child. Its like taken out from a movie where the script is there but the actors are realy bad. When april jones mom made her appeal i had no doubt about how she felt i would react the same way.

by susible 29.09.13 18:38

whmon wrote:For me it was the earrings. The first time they appeared on TV I wondered how on earth she could have even thought about wearing earrings. Then, I noticed that every day she was wearing different earrings meaning she was taking time to select them in the morning meaning that her 'missing' child was not at the forefront of her mind.

Later, when I discovered that MBM's younger siblings were twins things became as clear as glass (I've already spoken of my early life as an elder sibling of twins at length.)

Yes, and not just the earrings, but the co-ordinated clothing, the perfectly highlighted hair, make up etc and of course who can forget the green and yellow ribbons tied into her hair. It's not the easiest of things to do, tying ribbons perfectly into hair, so it must have taken time and effort...How the heck could you be bothered with all of that palaver when your 3 yr old is missing, I would still have been wearing the same clothes from the time I discovered my child missing, literally crawling around on my hands and knees scouring for any clue, I would have been a wreck and I certainly would not have been concerned with what I looked like.

by Guest 29.09.13 20:28

susible wrote: [...] How the heck could you be bothered with all of that palaver when your 3 yr old is missing, I would still have been wearing the same clothes from the time I discovered my child missing, literally crawling around on my hands and knees scouring for any clue, I would have been a wreck and I certainly would not have been concerned with what I looked like.

***
I think [hope] I may talk for most of us. Yes, we agree. Being a wreck, searching until your feet give away, your knees are bloody, your breath getting short, no need for food nor drink nor sleep, just searching, searching. To be honest, though, I might have changed clothes after a week ... Fortunately so far, I've found my pets sooner than that.

by Harriet94 01.10.13 21:29

I was suspicious as soon as I learned that the children had been left alone in an unlocked apartment. I knew something was wrong when I saw Jane Tanners photo fit of the 'abductor' The image that Jane Tanner described ( and was published) was of comatose/ dead child. It did not equate to me in any way of no harm having come to that child.

by Guest 01.10.13 22:53

Harriet94 wrote: [...] The image that Jane Tanner described ( and was published) was of comatose/ dead child. It did not equate to me in any way of no harm having come to that child.

***
True. Most of us, but I have to speak for myself, think that's the way you would carry something dead, a child, a dog, a cat, even a chicken having been put down ...

by whmon 02.10.13 0:03

Châtelaine wrote:
Harriet94 wrote: [...] The image that Jane Tanner described ( and was published) was of comatose/ dead child. It did not equate to me in any way of no harm having come to that child.
***
True. Most of us, but I have to speak for myself, think that's the way you would carry something dead, a child, a dog, a cat, even a chicken having been put down ...

That is the way I would carry something dead too. It is also the way I would describe somebody carrying something when it wasn't true.

by galena 03.10.13 21:50

Seek truth wrote:
galena wrote:
Seek truth wrote:JANE TANNER!!! How she never told them, let's go search that way!

But then ignored the whole thing, it was after the sniffer dogs and reading KATES BOOK that I believed they were badly guilty. Because I didn't believe, I then searched online and found his book etc, but it didn't convince me.

I only read Amarals book a long time after but ignored it , as I thought the conclusion was just an opinion.

Although from the start I saw them behaving strangely on tv, but I still helped search for Madeleine. I stopped searching for madeleine and searched for answers online because of Jane Tanner and the police and papers saying things differently.
My mum was - and is - a staunch believer in the McCanns but even she was puzzled by the Jane Tanner evidence once she saw it on Crimewatch - I think she believed it would be definitive proof of the abduction but after all the fuss it didn't really amount to anything at all ...
Your mum found Jane a Tanners story hard to believe BUT she is still a McCann believer?

Perhaps she needs to read more from the files, may be their British police interviews, where they and their friends reply Yeah, but no, but yeah, you know, very often.
Or read Kate's book, she avoids a lot we need to know and compare it with the files, or may be just shoe her all the pictures of her laughing , even on the day of the trial before entering the courtroom, pity the judge never asked who was laughing!

Oh there's no talking to my mum once she gets an idea in her head, she doesn't really understood the internet and goes by what they say in the papers. But to be fair she has never actually given any money to the fund as she thinks it's unfair that so much money should go find one little girl when so many children have gone missing/been abused - something I agree with ...

by juliet 04.10.13 0:21

One odd thing is that Jill Renwick said on the first bulletins that Madeleine had white blonde hair and (I think) blue eyes. Well she didn't have white blonde hair. Why lie about it? She laid great stress on how pretty the child was. The Mccanns kept saying how beautiful she was. From the start it seemed wrong as if the child's value was in her looks.

by Guest 04.10.13 7:54

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is one of the earliest reports. Jill Renwick is quoted as saying "very blonde" which the picture of Madeleine certainly doesn't confirm.

She also mentions "half-hourly" checks at 9 and 10 o'clock after an 8 o'clock departure.......

I don't think that there can be any doubt that the aim was to mislead the public about Madeleine's appearance.

by boo boos 22.10.13 2:08

Amongst other things I thought it unbelievable when Kate said (dont recall which interview - woman's hour?) Gerry told her they must get some sleep - which he managed, albeit half an hour. Wtf?! How can you possibly sleep when your 3 year old daughter has been missing less than 7hours? Or even THINK about sleep. Now its occurred to me perhaps that was a lie and maybe to cover Gerry was missing. Like accepting the negligence as a lesser evil, so would look heartless bein able to sleep when you were doing something much more sus.