Re: What made YOU doubt the McCann's 'abduction hypothesis'?

by **tigger** 21.12.11 12:24

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Jean wrote:There are some earlier comments on the same subject.

http//jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2597-when-what-made-you-first-question-this-story

Wonder what happened to people like Rosa, LJ and Mini Sleuth who have since gone missing!
I wonder, too, Jean! lJ was quite prolific when I first started posting here. Think I just missed ROSA though... As an aside, I think you were the first member to reply to my first post

To all who are missing LJ. I'd been in contact with her until she stopped posting. (a countrywoman of mine after all) She told me that she was worried that posting and mail would soon become difficult. I can't say more, but send a little prayer up for her, her husband and children and the parrot who ate the keyboard. Thanks.

by Guest 21.12.11 12:29

Yes I wondered if the situation in Mexico had something to do with LJ's abrupt departure.

I hope that she and her family are okay.

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

by **tigger** 21.12.11 12:51

dragonfly wrote:For me I was slow one I never followed the case up close, Do not read papers, But for me it was the symbolism used in the campaign, I take an interest in symbolism in corporate logos, and I was seeing it coming up in this case , ( we had tv's at work no sound just pictures) and I thought the people involved were in the know well connected to the Elite, The people behind the campaign for me were aware and I was always waiting for the Big Brother society ie create a problem , get a reaction , offer the solution , and the whole Amber alert then was being mentioned, And that's when the Mccanns were promoting it, WHY ? look after your kids in the first place ! I started to look on you tube for original early day interviews where they were coming out of villa and giving message every day cant seem to get a lot on that, and i just kept seeing messages on you tube saying watch Amarals video, Which I did and that confirmed it , Amarals book has the symbolism on it as well, and what was Gerry thinking with his wide agenda chart , most people draw boxes or bubbles his was masonic looking compass's

Yes Dragonfly, Gerry seems very keen on his masonic membership. Went wrong from the start, because the police just interpreted his secret signal right at the beginning 'as if he was praying like an Arab'. Might have worked better at home?

I twisted myself into knots trying to fit all their 'evidence' in, but they were so damn ready! With plans, with doctored photographs, with Amber Alert. The photoshopping of the coloboma must have been done well before the 3rd of May, the photographs could not have been printed that evening in the whole of PdL, leave alone OC. Therefore this is 'before the fact' as it is known in the legal profession. Imo the T7 too are guilty of accessory to .....before the fact.
The marketing of an outstandingly pretty girl (which Maddie wasn't) the amazing photograph which is still trotted out to get knee-jerk responses of the public, the trade mark child. My heart bleeds for Maddie, she only looks happy in a handful of photographs, in all the rest she is anxious, uncertain and in the blue eyeshadow one, imo she looks stoned.

by TheHare 21.12.11 17:41

I remember being up late watching the BBC coverage of the UK local elections. At some point in the evening the news reported the disapearance of a child in Portugal. By 10:30 the next morning I could smell the stench of proffessional PR involvement in practically every single media report. That set off the alarm bells. The whole thing had the feel of a new labour campaign.

by Guest 21.12.11 18:23

It would be interesting The Hare if you could remember approximately when that first report came. It is indeed amazing that the "disappearance" was being reported so quickly when it would have seemed to all intents and purposes that it was simply a case of a child who had wandered off and would be found.

by russiandoll 21.12.11 19:15

as a poster has stated may be that a person taking so much care of appearances is just a bit weird under the circumstances and of course is not indicative of involvement in a crime !
Poor communication on my part maybe but I thought I stated that was my first wtf moment, an instinct that something def was not right. That led me to take a huge interest in what was going on and the whole thing stank from the start.
While it might seem I am using myself as a yardstick which is not fair, really, I have to remember the context of my wtf moment, when my father was extremely ill, [ he died the date of the arguido interview so I read all that news months later ]...but in early May I was so busy with him being ill I left my earrings in and didnt change them until way after he died...I was preoccupied and showering clean hair and if meeting others a touch of mascara and lip gloss to make myself feel vaguely decent looking was all I managed.
It is the "finishing touch" I think for a woman to put on jewellery and as such why I found the changing jewellery under the grave circumstances bizarre, as was the perfectly applied make up.
Everything I have read esp the book leads me to believe that Mrs McCann is a supreme narcissist and self obsessed. The jewellery, not just wearing it but even giving it a moments thought.....then not to dismiss it as trivia but to then go through the bother of removing and changing it, shows imo a weird sense of what is important at such a time. It should not have figured in her thoughts as far as I am concerned.
I noticed this in the early media stories, different earrings and neckchains.

by crewman 21.12.11 20:10

I voted for the "Incessant and over-zealous support by Celebs, Politicians etc" option because this was essentially the incongruity that led me into researching the case, and eventually to discovering this place with good people like yourselves and other bloggers such as "Spud Gun" and "Good Quality Wristbands" et al.

I should add, however, that this obviously wasn't the reason in point of fact that led me to form the conclusion that the McCann parents were in fact culpable in the disappearance of their daughter. That would come ultimately from the material released by the PJ, and without this material I think there would be difficulty in holding to this conclusion. The treatment of the PJ in all of this has been a disgrace, and is probably second only to the injustice meted out to the little girl Madeleine. It seems there is nothing sacred to team McCann when it comes to hiding the truth of this lie. Shameful.

by rainbow-fairy 21.12.11 20:51

russiandoll wrote:as a poster has stated may be that a person taking so much care of appearances is just a bit weird under the circumstances and of course is not indicative of involvement in a crime !
Poor communication on my part maybe but I thought I stated that was my first wtf moment, an instinct that something def was not right. That led me to take a huge interest in what was going on and the whole thing stank from the start.
While it might seem I am using myself as a yardstick which is not fair, really, I have to remember the context of my wtf moment, when my father was extremely ill, [ he died the date of the arguido interview so I read all that news months later ]...but in early May I was so busy with him being ill I left my earrings in and didn't change them until way after he died...I was preoccupied and showering clean hair and if meeting others a touch of mascara and lip gloss to make myself feel vaguely decent looking was all I managed.
It is the "finishing touch" I think for a woman to put on jewellery and as such why I found the changing jewellery under the grave circumstances bizarre, as was the perfectly applied make up.
Everything I have read esp the book leads me to believe that Mrs McCann is a supreme narcissist and self obsessed. The jewellery, not just wearing it but even giving it a moments thought.....then not to dismiss it as trivia but to then go through the bother of removing and changing it, shows imo a weird sense of what is important at such a time. It should not have figured in her thoughts as far as I am concerned.
I noticed this in the early media stories, different earrings and neckchains.

Not to forget the colour co-ordinated hair bows...
Don't worry, russiandoll, there was no problem for me regarding your post - not only did I know exactly what you mean, I agree 100%. I wear jewellery - rings, necklace, earrings and a couple of piercings. But I never take them out. They are just there...
I know its not the same, but I'm on my own with two boys, the eldest is twelve and has ADHD, the youngest is ten and severely autistic - hard work - and the thoughts of jewellery changes, make-up etc don't even register! I've just had my first in-salon haircut in over eleven years! Gosh, that makes me sound like such a skank - I'm not, I've just got far better things to think about!
No way does it ring true how Kate was constantly titivating herself. Even self-obsessed narcissists fall apart in such situations - if only for the effect it will have on them.
I'm with you all the way, russiandoll Wink

by Angelique 22.12.11 15:17

I forgot to add that I voted "the McCanns themselves".

tigger

Yes, the photos was really an indicator as you say. But why leave themselves open by having these available. Or is this conceit, we have better more professional photos, not like the printer ones.

by Angelique 22.12.11 15:18

Sorry double post - silly iPad!

Edited to add

I miss Rosa a lot as I think her posts were very enlightening and to the point.

by **tigger** 22.12.11 15:24

TheHare wrote:I remember being up late watching the BBC coverage of the UK local elections. At some point in the evening the news reported the disapearance of a child in Portugal. By 10:30 the next morning I could smell the stench of proffessional PR involvement in practically every single media report. That set off the alarm bells. The whole thing had the feel of a new labour campaign.

That's interesting. I'm particularly interested in the needless involvement of Gordon Brown, Kate mentions once that Gerry left a message for Gordon to phone him.....Hmm. Who's pulling who's strings? Gordon phoned back quite quickly.
But! No photographs of the great man with the unfortunate couple, none. Although he did take the trouble to make a personal visit to Leicester Police (Rothley would be just around the corner) and the FSS. Both of which, imo, suffered severe memory loss afterwards.

by Angelique 22.12.11 15:30

He used the "cry for help".

by Angelique 22.12.11 15:34

Smokeandmirrors

When I first heard that Gerry and Kate were both Doctors I was astonished. But even bigger surprise when others of the party were also Doctors and felt it was a safe thing to do!

by **Rico Sorda** 24.12.11 9:06

What made YOU disbelieve the abduction hypothesis?

Simple

THE EVIDENCE

rs

by Shibboleth 24.12.11 10:31

The lies. From the very beginning. 'It was like dining in your own back garden' was the first one. Then I saw a video clip of the place, there was a swimming pool, a bar, a wall, some steps in the way, you could not see the apartment from the bar, there were trees in front of it. It was 89 meters away. It made me think that gardens in Portugal are very big. At that time I lived in Manchester, England - our garden had a place for the bin and my bike, so it could not possibly be an English garden, they are not so big to have pools and trees and to be 90 meters long. So this is a lie. Then, the shutters had been broken to get to the child, this was a very shocking statement - imagine that! But then, this was shown to be a lie, too. The McCann have told lies from the first day. Why would anyone do this, when they have lost a child? It is not normal behavior.

This is only the start of why I can never believe a word from the McCann.

by jd 24.12.11 10:34

It was 89 meters away.

Need to correct you there, it was infact 49.2 meters away...kate told us very firmly this "fact"

by Shibboleth 24.12.11 10:40

jd wrote:
It was 89 meters away.

Need to correct you there, it was infact 49.2 meters away...kate told us very firmly this "fact"

I suppose that makes it *okay* then. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 24.12.11 10:49

Which is very odd, because google earth and maps.google clearly show the bar and the apartment, and helpfully give a scale at the bottom.
The absolute minimum distance measurable from the nearest corner of the Tapas bar, in a direct line across the pool and the wall and the lane and the hedge to the nearest part of the apartment building, (not to the front bedroom, or from where they were actually sitting) is around 64.3 metres, about 70 yards.
But the book was a version of the truth. So that's all right then.

by rainbow-fairy 24.12.11 10:58

I'm really pleased with all the responses on here, thanks! Although as I said I just didn't believe the case from day one, I think all the reasons you have posted about are 'welding factors' for me. All things that absolutely superglue together my belief that Madeleine Beth McCann was not abducted from 5A on 3rd May 2007. Absolutely NOTHING I have seen or heard has made me waver in this belief. No evidence, McCanns increasingly odd and smug behaviour... These are the reasons I can't fathom the Brenda Ryan's of this world. I can totally understand going from believing to disbelieving, but to go anti-abduction to pro-abduction. Why on earth would you? There is absolutely no evidence!

by jd 24.12.11 11:00

and also kate did say on TV it was 49.2 so it must be the truth winkwink

...However she forgot to mention that she couldn't see the apartment through the plastic covering that was surrounding the Tapas bar that night

by Guest 24.12.11 11:21

jd wrote:and also kate did say on TV it was 49.2 so it must be the truth ...However she forgot to mention that she couldn't see the apartment through the plastic covering that was surrounding the Tapas bar that night

[snipped]
@ 1:06 Martin Brunt goes onto say: "Eight months on many who’ve followed the story still cannot understand why Gerry and Kate McCann left Madeleine and the younger twins alone in the apartment as they dined with friends at the nearby Tapas bar."

(Martin Brunt sitting at the Tapas Bar)

"I’m sitting at the table where the McCanns and their friends were eating on the night that Madeleine disappeared. This place is shut now for the winter. The apartment is some distance away, it’s beyond the swimming pool, there’s a wall and a hedge and behind that is a path. It would be very difficult from here to see anybody going in and out of the apartment."

(Martine Brunt walking from the Tapas bar to the apartment)

"Going to check on the kids wasn’t easy."

(standing at the gate at the foot of the steps leading up to the apartment)

"Well, 80 paces as far as the gate, the distance between the Tapas bar and the apartment, not quite as Gerry McCann described it."

After viewing this video it’s hard to see how the McCann couple believed it's okay to leave the children and check every 20 minutes when they couldn’t even see the apartment clearly from where they sat..... stories such as the tragic accidental death of two year old Lucy Marke (who was at a BBQ with her parents) outlines how dangerous it is for young ones to be out of sight even for only a few minutes.

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

by rainbow-fairy 24.12.11 11:35

jd wrote:and also kate did say on TV it was 49.2 so it must be the truth [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ...However she forgot to mention that she couldn't see the apartment through the plastic covering that was surrounding the Tapas bar that night

I think she forgot to mention a lot more than that, jd Wink

by **PeterMac** 24.12.11 13:28

But Katey must have access to google earth, must have access to maps.google, must have a map of the resort, must be able to do basic measuring and calculating (- you need O level maths to do medicine, plus A level Bio, Physics and Chemistry, all of which involve doing sums, ), and surely knows that any pronouncement like that would immediately be checked.
So why does she do it ? What process of cerebration leads her to say things which are instantly falsifiable, and can be shown within seconds to be nonsense ? Why do her advisors not tell her to be vague, why was JT not briefed to say she couldn't remember if GM and Jez were there or not. It is only when they try to fill in the enormous gaps and discrepancies with "evidence" that they come unstuck.

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.11 13:54

PeterMac wrote:But Katey must have access to google earth, must have access to maps.google, must have a map of the resort, must be able to do basic measuring and calculating (- you need O level maths to do medicine, plus A level Bio, Physics and Chemistry, all of which involve doing sums, ), and surely knows that any pronouncement like that would immediately be checked.
So why does she do it ? What process of cerebration leads her to say things which are instantly falsifiable, and can be shown within seconds to be nonsense ? Why do her advisors not tell her to be vague, why was JT not briefed to say she couldn't remember if GM and Jez were there or not. It is only when they try to fill in the enormous gaps and discrepancies with "evidence" that they come unstuck.

Why does she do it? Because she can.

I think times must have changed since you were a police superintendent in CID PeterMac - people like the McCanns don't go to prison these days...people like Senator Stuart Syvret and Tony Bennett do - you know, people who are appalled by child abuse to such an extent that they speak up about it.

Evidence, lies, discrepancies - even under oath - none of that matters. In fact people like the McCanns will even have their local police force advertising their money making venture on their website for free.

I bet you never thought to do anything like that when you were a police officer.

by Nina 24.12.11 15:06

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:But Katey must have access to google earth, must have access to maps.google, must have a map of the resort, must be able to do basic measuring and calculating (- you need O level maths to do medicine, plus A level Bio, Physics and Chemistry, all of which involve doing sums, ), and surely knows that any pronouncement like that would immediately be checked.
So why does she do it ? What process of cerebration leads her to say things which are instantly falsifiable, and can be shown within seconds to be nonsense ? Why do her advisors not tell her to be vague, why was JT not briefed to say she couldn't remember if GM and Jez were there or not. It is only when they try to fill in the enormous gaps and discrepancies with "evidence" that they come unstuck.

Why does she do it? Because she can.

I think times must have changed since you were a police superintendent in CID PeterMac - people like the McCanns don't go to prison these days...people like Senator Stuart Syvret and Tony Bennett do - you know, people who are appalled by child abuse to such an extent that they speak up about it.

Evidence, lies, discrepancies - even under oath - none of that matters. In fact people like the McCanns will even have their local police force advertising their money making venture on their website for free.

I bet you never thought to do anything like that when you were a police officer.

Get em, if I may snip your post,

quote, think times must have changed since you were a police superintendent in CID PeterMac - people like the McCanns don't go to prison these days...people like Senator Stuart Syvret and Tony Bennett do - you know, people who are appalled by child abuse to such an extent that they speak up about it.

Difference is the McCanns are protected and Tony and Stuart Syvret aren't. However imo the McCanns are dispensable should the need arise.