Re: 'Faked Abduction' Book - The Sun 27.01.2010

by aliberte2 31.01.10 4:09

Autumn wrote:
marigold wrote:
Pascal wrote:How do you know they didn't break down?

Maybe they did when the cheques weren't coming in fast enough.

Brings to mind something Gerry said when asked to describe how he felt about his daughter's disappearance - he compared the feeling to going to the cash machine and discovering his balance had gone into the red.

No-one will ever convince me that they ever cared about Madeleine.

Never said that. Prove it. You can't. It was Myth. But that's what you enjoy Trafficking in, No? Along with Gleefully Envisioning Madeleine's Abuse Because Her Parents' Aren't Looking For Her BEcause They Know She's Dead or Er, Something?

:megashock:

by vaguely1 31.01.10 8:55

He made the overdraft comment which interestingly is always used out of context. You never see it attached to the preceding question.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 8:59

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed
with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period
after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and
who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a
strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what
happened and what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly,
you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that
we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this
openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy
that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to
your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just
nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally were
shattered but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and
we started to get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly
behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our
legal team. The response with the fund which was really driven by
offers rather than us thinking we needed it. And once these were in
place then it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 9:06

The 60 reasons booklet claimed that the question asked prior to this statement was how they felt on learning that Madeleine had gone missing.

That appears to have been accepted as fact.

As you can see above from the Sky news transcript.....it wasn't.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 9:57

twinkle wrote:Come on, any reference to how they appeared to look is just rubbish.
Which one of you has the "how to look handbook when you child disappears"
Nobody can predict what behaviour is acceptable or not when your child has gone missing.
Would you really like to be in that position to be able to give an informed opinion. no nobody would.

We all have abilities to read body language and facial expressions, to a greater or lesser degree. As a general rule, women are better equipped to 'read' body language and faces than men.

No-one, not one person on this earth, beams like Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann did on being greeted by cameras and a sympathetic congregation on your first daughter's 4th birthday (which no doubt they were planning to celebrate at home in Rothley, with invitations already having been sent out*), knowing their dear daughter was still missing nine days after they'd deliberately left her alone with the two two-year-old twins for a night of adult fun and eating out, their daughter having already informed them that she and her younger brother had been crying on their own the night before. (Though, mind you, this comment of Madeleine's was 'only a passing remark', according to anaesthetist Dr Kate McCann, and according to cardiologist Dr Gerald McCann 'we nearly didn't go, you know').

Why were they positively beaming on such an occasion?

[* Just a thought...did the McCanns ever mention their plans for a 4th birthday party at home in Rothley for Madeleine?]

by vaguely1 31.01.10 10:01

Except that rarely do we ever have such an insight in to the lives of people will missing children. Thankfully. With which to compare.

by **Jill Havern** 31.01.10 10:12

Tony Bennett wrote:Why were they positively beaming on such an occasion?

I thought they said it was only the first 48 hours that were incredibly difficult. Once they'd passed that landmark they were all smiles and smirks.

thinking

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 10:16

jkh wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Why were they positively beaming on such an occasion?

I thought they said it was only the first 48 hours that were incredibly difficult. Once they'd passed that landmark they were all smiles and smirks.

Yes, and I think they said they were 'sleeping normally' after just five days.

Probably the first couple in the history of the world to be doing so after their dearly beloved first child had gone missing and was probably in the hands of a predatory paedophile

by vaguely1 31.01.10 10:19

And how would they behave if she had died in an accident and they'd disposed of her body....

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 10:22

vaguely1 wrote:And how would they behave if she had died in an accident and they'd disposed of her body....

You might like to compare their behaviour with that of other people known to have covered up their crimes with a believeable 'cover story' [P.S. to Carter Ruck - not saying that this is what Drs G & K McCann have done]

by **Jill Havern** 31.01.10 10:23

I remember how Sarah Payne and Denise Bulger looked after their children went missing....absolutely heartbreaking.

Those poor children wail

Jamie still haunts me to this day because more details were given about what happened to him and it just breaks my heart to think of that tiny toddler going through that murderous ordeal.

As does Baby P wail

I cried buckets for those children and they weren't even mine - which is why I struggle to understand the smiles of, particularly, Maddie's mother Kate McCann.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 10:37

When Mrs McCann was helped physically to her seat in the church, an absolute wreck of a human being, I seem to remember that that wasn't right for people either.

I guess people have an acceptance of what's wrong or right in these situations. Based on press conference moments and court appearances, which is usually all we're provided with to judge. Very few of us, thank god, have ever been in a position to know what happens based on personal experience.

Yet according to what is supposed to have happened the McCanns ability to act is second to none - I wonder why, if this is the case, they didn't have planned behaviour for this infamous church moment. a moment when they were surrounded by cameras and people. I presumed it was because what you saw was a genuine reaction to being surrounded by caring and warm people and words that they may have found a comfort.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 10:55

vaguely1 wrote:When Mrs McCann was helped physically to her seat in the church, an absolute wreck of a human being, I seem to remember that that wasn't right for people either.

I guess people have an acceptance of what's wrong or right in these situations. Based on press conference moments and court appearances, which is usually all we're provided with to judge. Very few of us, thank god, have ever been in a position to know what happens based on personal experience.

Yet according to what is supposed to have happened the McCanns ability to act is second to none - I wonder why, if this is the case, they didn't have planned behaviour for this infamous church moment. a moment when they were surrounded by cameras and people. I presumed it was because what you saw was a genuine reaction to being surrounded by caring and warm people and words that they may have found a comfort.

Day 9 - 12th May 2007 - Outside the Roman Catholic Church in Praia da Luz, beaming and smiling - Madeleine's 4th birthday

Day 55 - 28th June 2007, Dr Gerald McCann said: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

Day 1,000 (945 days later) - 27th January 2010 - Celebrity charity bash at Sir Richard Branson's 'Kensington Roof Gardens'. Dr McCann's self-fulfilling prophecy fulfilled.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 11:00

Tony I know all this. It still doesn't make me think that we have a right to convict people without a fair trial.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 11:08

vaguely1 wrote:Tony I know all this. It still doesn't make me think that we have a right to convict people without a fair trial.

Nobody is convicting them. We are asking questions and analysing the evidence - and, yes, that most certainly includes body language, facial expressions and planning events marking Madeleine's disappearance well into the future.

One more thing.

Given the massive expenditure on the 'search' for Madeleine, can you (or anyone else for that matter) tell me one, just one, known fact about Madeleine's abductor (always assuming there ever was one).

Bear in mind that even Dave Edgar, who was convinced that she was being held in a prison lair 10 miles from Praia da Luz in the 'lawless hills around' - and remains so according to the latest outpourings from McCann Publicity Machine Central - thinks the abductor might have been an abductress.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 11:13

I can't tell you one fact about her abductor. I can't tell you one fact about how the McCanns were supposed to have gotten rid of her either Tony.

You are indeed asking questions, nothing wrong with that. There are a lot of questions to be asked.

What happens though, is that things are stated as fact, when they're not. For example that quote further up this (?) thread about the student overdraft. It was put in to writing, handed out to the public, the quote was made, but it was attributed to a completely different question than to which it was answering.

It's this sort of misinformation that worries me. It becomes fact, people view the case using these facts. Why do people choose to confuse the situation in this way?

Who benefits from it?

Certainly not Madeleine.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 11:19

vaguely1 wrote:It's this sort of misinformation that worries me.

I see.

It's the dozen-plus alerts to human corpses and blood by Eddie and Keela that most worry me.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 11:23

Are you saying it's okay to misinform people on some things because you're sure that they did it and you want them to think that too? I'm not sure what your answer means?

by jack 31.01.10 13:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:It's this sort of misinformation that worries me.
I see.

It's the dozen-plus alerts to human corpses and blood by Eddie and Keela that most worry me.

Mr Bennett, could you tell me where you get the information that the dog's alerted to a human corpse. Grime refers to cadaverine contaminant? Could you stick to the facts and stop spreading misinformation.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.10 13:55

jack wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:It's this sort of misinformation that worries me.
I see.

It's the dozen-plus alerts to human corpses and blood by Eddie and Keela that most worry me.

Mr Bennett, could you tell me where you get the information that the dog's alerted to a human corpse. Grime refers to cadaverine contaminant. Could you stick to the facts and stop spreading misinformation.

Why was Eddie sent out there and what had he successfully alerted to around 200 times out of 200 beforehand?

The truth, please.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 13:58

You're misquoting Grime again. It does your cause no good. If the case is strong enough against them then you don't need to keep misquoting and putting a spin on things.

by vaguely1 31.01.10 14:05

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed
with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period
after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and
who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a
strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what
happened and what brought it about?

You translated that as :

What did you feel like when Madeleine went missing.

What's your agenda for doing this? Why can't you let the evidence speak for itself, let people make up their own minds. Why is it SO important to you that people believe?

by jack 31.01.10 16:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
jack wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:It's this sort of misinformation that worries me.
I see.

It's the dozen-plus alerts to human corpses and blood by Eddie and Keela that most worry me.

Mr Bennett, could you tell me where you get the information that the dog's alerted to a human corpse. Grime refers to cadaverine contaminant. Could you stick to the facts and stop spreading misinformation.
Why was Eddie sent out there and what had he successfully alerted to around 200 times out of 200 beforehand?

The truth, please.

Both Eddie and Keela were sent out to find evidence. They found none. isn't that incredible. Claims that Maddie died in the appt yet the two best dogs in the world found no forensic evidence. As regards your 200 claim, more misinformation from you.This refers to the fact that have not reacted to pork in 200 cases under experimental conditions.

Eddie reacted to 11 spots in Jersey .No corpses found . Fact.truth

by Laffin Assasin 31.01.10 17:00

Were Human remains found at in the Jersy case ?

Yes !

by bellatrix 31.01.10 17:01

Re the photo of the McCanns coing out of church-was there video footage of it? In what context was it taken? I mean what had preceeded it? Had a journalist fallen over? Was a child acting up? What followed the picture? How long did the smiles last? A snapshot is a second in time and imo not always a true reflection of events.People tell me I smile my biggest and brightest smile when I am dying inside-a defence mechanism?