Re: Gerry McCann promotes exciting new missing child smart phone app

by Harriet94 07.11.14 22:31

I saw the news report on this when it was launched and I felt a deep sense of unease about it. I assumed that a respected charity like the Samaritans would have done proper and extensive research before launching the application.

by Geowoo 07.11.14 22:34

With this highlighting of a missing child app promoted by the McCanns...the Hacked off group looking to tighten privacy laws and control the newspapers...the call for "trolls" to be made an example of and the loud shouting about "irresponsible journalism" you can see exactly where this is headed.
It is intended to completely suppress a vocal and suspicious public and to encourage the tracking of children by scaring parents who ..as Gerry purports...may just lose their child because it happens every day...There is an agenda most definitely and It is bovine manure.

NB. I do believe phone hacking was very wrong when it involved a young girls murder...and causing so much torment to her parents and making them think she was still alive.

by maebee 08.11.14 0:21

Geowoo wrote:With this highlighting of a missing child app promoted by the McCanns...the Hacked off group looking to tighten privacy laws and control the newspapers...the call for "trolls" to be made an example of and the loud shouting about "irresponsible journalism" you can see exactly where this is headed.
It is intended to completely suppress a vocal and suspicious public and to encourage the tracking of children by scaring parents who ..as Gerry purports...may just lose their child because it happens every day...There is an agenda most definitely and It is bovine manure.

NB. I do believe phone hacking was very wrong when it involved a young girls murder...and causing so much torment to her parents and making them think she was still alive.

Great post Geowoo. The Doctors McCann, instead of being focused on searching for the child they lost, are totally focused on trawling the internet for non-believers of their story and influencing/forcing Google to silence them. Unfrigginbelievable.

What was done in the Milly Dowler case is nothing short of disgraceful. Some good news: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Poppyfox 08.11.14 15:07

I think they hold hands so that if one makes a verbal mistake the other will squeeze it to make them aware of this(Gerry was allowed to put a hand on Kate's shoulder in the first police interview, again to ensure Kate didn't slip up. This was a huge mistake by the PJ to allow this manipulation from the very beginning by this odious pair). As for the thigh groping this is to show how virile and sexy Gerry is and that Kate can't keep her hands off him!!! :bad:

by Rorschach 08.11.14 15:40

Poppyfox wrote:I think they hold hands so that if one makes a verbal mistake the other will squeeze it to make them aware of this(Gerry was allowed to put a hand on Kate's shoulder in the first police interview, again to ensure Kate didn't slip up. This was a huge mistake by the PJ to allow this manipulation from the very beginning by this odious pair). As for the thigh groping this is to show how virile and sexy Gerry is and that Kate can't keep her hands off him!!! :bad:

I agree. In interviews they seem so obviously nervous and guilty. When Gerry stormed off after being questioned about about the blood, Kate looked positively terrified. "what you doing muffled under her breath followed by the" e's too 'ot, go get some fresh air" while fanning her own face? What do you mean it's too hot Kate, he just stated he was annoyed specifically at at the blood question. And why so dismissive of the evidence n the apartment, even SY are entertaining the the ridiculous theory a burglar killed her there. I find this video to be one of the most telling examples of all the body language analysis. Imo they are very clearly guilty of something and never allow themselves to relax.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:10

Geowoo wrote:With this highlighting of a missing child app promoted by the McCanns...the Hacked off group looking to tighten privacy laws and control the newspapers...the call for "trolls" to be made an example of and the loud shouting about "irresponsible journalism" you can see exactly where this is headed.
It is intended to completely suppress a vocal and suspicious public and to encourage the tracking of children by scaring parents who ..as Gerry purports...may just lose their child because it happens every day...There is an agenda most definitely and It is bovine manure.

NB. I do believe phone hacking was very wrong when it involved a young girls murder...and causing so much torment to her parents and making them think she was still alive.

This is truly quite scary stuff. The Mcs (and their friends) are so obviously implicated in the disappearance of Madeleine, imo, I think even an intelligent eight year old would be able to spot the inconsistencies in their stories.

There is a 'wider agenda' here, definitely. There is also the Mc agenda which is to try to silence, as you say, a 'vocal and suspicious' public. I think that, for the Mcs, this is especially important as they do not want their surviving children to read what the vocal and suspicious members of the public have written about the Mc version of events.

By claiming that parents lose their children all the time - even if just for a short time - GM is trying to 'normalize' what happened to Madeleine. Suggesting that what happened to Madeleine could happen to anyone.

As both Kate and Gerry know, the kidnapping and abduction of children by COMPLETE STRANGERS is remarkably unusual. The statistics support this. And, indeed, the McCanns were/are very well aware of this FACT. Indeed, it is the reason that both Kate and Gerry felt it was completely safe to leave all three of their children every evening without a babysitter. Because, as Kate wrote in her book, the risk of one (or more) of the children being stolen by a stranger was zero. Kate writes that if she had felt that what they were doing was in any way unsafe, she would not have done it.

To my mind this is the McCanns greatest undoing. To claim that there is no risk of one of the children being abducted by a stranger, and then claim, when one of their children is missing from the apartment, that the only scenario is the very one that they felt there was no risk of, is just LUDICROUS, as Gerry would say.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:17

I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:20

Parents lose their children all the time - Eh?

Does he mean that a parent might lose sight of a child for a short time whilst out with them?

That would be totally different to both parents deciding several nights in a row to leaving 3 children under the age of 4 in an unlocked apartment which, as Martin Brunt showed in a video dated December 2007, the apartment was 80 paces away from the tapas bar , could not be clearly seen from the bar and was in the dark.

Totally different, absolutely totally different.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:22

j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:23

j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:23

I suppose by promoting the big bad bogey-man abduction story, there was a great 'marketing ploy' as GM might say.

And it would encourage people to donate to THE FUND.

They really are a repulsive couple, imo, and it is the height of bad taste that they are allowed within a million miles of any organization that purports to help innocent parents find children who have gone missing through no fault of their own.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:25

Panto time on the forum again.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:26

plebgate wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?
Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

Someone could have jemmied the shutters, I suppose?! big grin

The could have pretended that they forgot to lock the door. Or even that they felt that resort was 'so safe' that it was fine to leave a window open, or a door unlocked.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:26

aquila wrote:Panto time on the forum again.

What do you mean, aquila?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:28

plebgate wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?
Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

And they'd definitely have heard shutters being raised.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:29

Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:31

And they'd definitely have heard shutters being raised.

----

How come burglars sometimes manage to burgle houses at night when people are asleep?

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:31

j.rob wrote:
aquila wrote:Panto time on the forum again.

What do you mean, aquila?

I mean those that come onto the forum and ask loaded questions whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not you j.rob.

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:32

j.rob wrote:
plebgate wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?
Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

Someone could have jemmied the shutters, I suppose?!

The could have pretended that they forgot to lock the door. Or even that they felt that resort was 'so safe' that it was fine to leave a window open, or a door unlocked.

Yes they could have, but who doesn't check doors before settling down/sleeping and if the window had been left open then presumably lichen would have been disturbed?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:33

j.rob wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.

That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:34

aquila wrote:
j.rob wrote:
aquila wrote:Panto time on the forum again.

What do you mean, aquila?
I mean those that come onto the forum and ask loaded questions whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not you j.rob.

Who is it then? Do share. Can't be doing with cryptic messages.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:35

Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.
That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened.

What crime would that be?

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:35

Yes they could have, but who doesn't check doors before settling down/sleeping and if the window had been left open then presumably lichen would have been disturbed?

---------

The same type of people that think it is perfectly fine to leave three children alone in an apartment on holiday every evening without a babysitter, perhaps? And windows don't always have lichen on them. It's not unusual for people to leave windows open or ajar at night - especially in the summer - you see it all the time.

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:43

Yes leave windows open in the summer on a warm night. It was a very cold night in early May.

Anyway I think this is going off topic, so no more from me.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:52

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.
That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened.
What crime would that be?

The crime they were reporting at the time- abduction.

Please note that doesn't mean that I personally believe that she was abducted but that's what the McCanns were reporting.

For what it's worth in the early days I thought "woke and wandered" was the most likely explanation. The dogs findings and Kate refusing to answer questions changed my mind.

by j.rob 09.11.14 15:22

That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened

-----

Yes it does. Gerry at 9pm. Matt their friend at 9.30pm and Kate at 10pm.

Kate has written and stated that she believes that 'the abductor' might have been hiding in the room when Gerry allegedly did his 9pm 'check' so that places Gerry very firmly at the scene of a crime that is allegedly about to unfold in apartment 5A. The crime that would have begun when the 'abductor' first entered the apartment.

And their friend Matt is at the scene of the alleged crime of 'abduction' at 9.30pm. That places their friend Matt very firmly at the scene of the crime as, according to the McCanns and their friends the crime occurred between 9pm and 10pm. So Matt is there right in the middle of the alleged 'abduction'.

Such a pity Matt didn't bump into the abductor, isn't it?

Or indeed that Gerry's friend Jez Wilkins who was wandering around the resort that evening with his pram and allegedly bumped into Gerry outside apartment 5A at 9.15pm didn't spot the abductor either?

Just think, Madeleine might have been 'saved'.

Still, at least Jane Tanner allegedly saw the abductor at 9.15!! Phew!! Thank goodness for that!

But, hang on, how could Jane Tanner have spotted Madeleine's abductor at 9.15pm when neither Gerry or Jez saw him? They were both outside the apartment at 9.15pm, allegedly, so how could they have missed Tanner-man?

Hmmmm........were it not for that, Jane Tanner's sighting might have at least a shred of credibility.

But, given that it seems highly unlikely that both Jez and Gerry didn't see Tanner-man despite being in the same place at the same time as Jane Tanner, then perhaps one might get a bit suspicious........

Because if Tanner-man is out of the frame, then who is to say that 'the abductor' - or the person/s responsible for what happened to Madeleine might just be........

Those who were at the scene of the crime that night.

So that would be Gerry at 9pm. Or Matt at 9.30pm. Or Kate at 10pm.

And that's not taking into account the Smith sighting either!

prisoner

by j.rob 09.11.14 15:30

Yes leave windows open in the summer on a warm night. It was a very cold night in early May.

------

Page 70 Madeleine, Kate writes about Gerry's alleged 'check' on Madeleine at 9.05pm:

"Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers."

Given that, according to the McCann's, Madeleine was wearing relatively lightweight cotton pyjamas that night unless the apartment was heated if it was a very cold night then surely Madeleine would have been right under the covers?

Also, some people do leave windows open even when it is not that warm. I am not trying to be argumentative, by the way. But some people like a flow of fresh air! It is an undeniable fact.

by kimHager 09.11.14 17:37

I think it doesnt matter if they did or didny do thid or that...those two ( mcs) trying to save someone elses child when they didnt see the harm in leaving 3 toddlers alone while out getting pissed up is rediculous lets let the fox promote saving the hens from the henhouses! It makes me angry, why not ask soneone who actually could understand...why not ask Denise Bulger or some parent that would give thwir last breath for their missing child IMO! Not trying to go off topic

by Brian Griffin 09.11.14 17:39

plebgate wrote:That still picture of them with the pink hydrangeas in the background is getting on my nerves. Aren't they nearer 50 now than 20, so why the hand holding still? That hand holding gets on my nerves too.

Hasn't it been suggested that the hand-holding could be a way of signaling surreptitiously if one or the other (but probably Kate) starts to veer off onto a train of thought that might cause problems? Remember that 'blunder' outside the court in Portugal after Goncalo's very public switcheroo when Kate took the initiative and moaned about having to get childcare arranged in the UK? Gerry was not amused and Kate was silent at the next photo opp. leaving Gerry to do the talking. Well, if they are holding hands a little extra pressure from a finger squeeze would go unnoticed by an interviewer but would send a warning message to the other person. I've noticed how Gerry seems to be getting less tolerant of Kate's input when the cameras are on them. In one recent interview, Gerry starts his long-winded spiel of obfuscation and when Kate chimes in, he almost tuts he's so obviously irritated by it.

If I remember correctly, Gerry was sitting behind Kate with his hand on her shoulder when the police were interviewing her in Portugal, in the early stages of the case, when he shouldn't have been in the interview room at all! One squeeze for 'yes', two for 'no', maybe? Or was it the other way round? Without that support, I wonder what Kate would have said?

In my opinion.

by Brian Griffin 09.11.14 17:54

j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

If they were checking as they say they were, their evenings would be interrupted by a constant coming and going of parents to and from the apartments. I doubt, the more the crowd got bevvied up, they would be as assiduous in their patrols, if they did them at all! Just my opinion, of course, but if they had been checking as much as they had, then why the need to get rid of the Tapas staff (some of the very people who went out in their own time to search while the Mcs did nothing) and have them sworn to secrecy? What do they know that threatens the McCanns? In my opinion.

Latest topics