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

by **PeterMac** 24.12.11 16:20

Times have certainly changed, but "Lord" Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison - probably to their great surprise.
And some MPs and "lords" have gone there more recently, over what were comparatively small amounts of money.
So we live in hope that justice will one day be done.

by rainbow-fairy 24.12.11 18:22

PeterMac wrote:Times have certainly changed, but "Lord" Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison - probably to their great surprise.
And some MPs and "lords" have gone there more recently, over what were comparatively small amounts of money.
So we live in hope that justice will one day be done.

Yes, PeterMac, I am completely with you on this one... I can be very cynical but in this case I do have hope that they will get their comeuppance. Its the sheer arrogance of them that gets to me, and I do believe that its this arrogance that could be their downfall - after all, they do say pride comes before a fall! Along with Nina, I believe that they could become dispensible, if what I think lays behind this case actually does. I have a feeling, don't know why, that 2012 could be 'annus horriblis' for our 'royal' couple... Wink

by **tigger** 24.12.11 18:34

PeterMac wrote:Times have certainly changed, but "Lord" Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison - probably to their great surprise.
And some MPs and "lords" have gone there more recently, over what were comparatively small amounts of money.
So we live in hope that justice will one day be done.

I'm with you there. I really don't want to believe that the whole system is rotten.
Although the press imo has no business revealing the sex lives of anybody, unless they're doing something illegal. In most other countries it is taken for granted that quite a few notables will have a mistress or visit prostitutes, that would only become an issue if illegal issues such as fraud would play a part. Andrew Marr is a good example, criticizing others' sex lives whilst having a gagging order on the press about his own sex life.

Now paedophilia is illegal and should be exposed but there's remarkably little about it in the press. Cameron, according to the DT today is going to curb the sexualisation of children in the media. That sounds good and there appears to have been no pressure to do this.

SY is hopefully doing their job if they're allowed to do so. The media are misreporting even the few morsels they get thrown.

Let's hope that the February trial and Pat Brown's efforts will be publicised in the UK. That would be a good 'opening' for the media to begin the process of printing the truth.

by Ross 24.12.11 19:06

If by 'doubt' you mean have suspicions about the parents, then I would have to say as soon as I heard about Madeleine missing. This was not a presumption of guilt, that ultimately is a matter for the courts, but because of the following facts;

1) When a child goes missing, if they have not returned within 48 hours there is a less than 10% chance that they will turn up alive.
2) When a child dies non-accidentally and not from natural causes then 80-90% of the time one or both of the parents are responsible.
3) In 80-90% of reported cases of child sexual abuse the perpetrator(s) are from the family or by someone known to the family.

Those harsh statistics are just how it is, and although for most parents the idea of harming their children is unconscionable the reality is that it does happen. The investigator does not presume innocence, he'll look at it the other way round, everyone is a suspect until they have been proven not to have been culpable. Logically, suspicion will fall on the people statistically most likely to be responsible, they will have to be eliminated from the enquiries first. In this case, we're still waiting.

by Ross 24.12.11 19:16

PeterMac wrote:Times have certainly changed, but "Lord" Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison - probably to their great surprise.
And some MPs and "lords" have gone there more recently, over what were comparatively small amounts of money.
So we live in hope that justice will one day be done.

I'm afraid I do think the whole system is rotten, putrid in fact. So it was curious that those two gilded lilies were put through that ritual humiliation. I wonder if perhaps they incurred the displeasure of someone powerful, transgressed some code we know nothing of, and they were punished for that rather than for breaking the law. Also they were pretty trivial things they were done for, it was just them and them alone involved. If the McCanns were brought down, just think of what would come crashing down with them.

by **tigger** 24.12.11 21:03

Ross wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Times have certainly changed, but "Lord" Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison - probably to their great surprise.
And some MPs and "lords" have gone there more recently, over what were comparatively small amounts of money.
So we live in hope that justice will one day be done.

I'm afraid I do think the whole system is rotten, putrid in fact. So it was curious that those two gilded lilies were put through that ritual humiliation. I wonder if perhaps they incurred the displeasure of someone powerful, transgressed some code we know nothing of, and they were punished for that rather than for breaking the law. Also they were pretty trivial things they were done for, it was just them and them alone involved. If the McCanns were brought down, just think of what would come crashing down with them.

All along it's my hope that the ones who would have come crashing down if the Portugese justice system had been allowed to work, have by now managed to safeguard themselves. To me it looks as if it's all falling apart slowly. The SY review is the biggest puzzle of all. Why on earth allocate that amount of money to as Himself said: 'chav doctors'.
My guess is that the Fund will be closed down or 'converted'. The McCanns will be forced in some way to stop seeking publicity of any kind. But imo they will never, never go to prison. I think it will close with a whimper, not a bang.
They're feeling pretty badly punished anyway, nothing has worked out the way they'd expected. No ambassadorial role for child safety, no celebrity lifestyle, not rubbing shoulders with the likes of J.K. Rowling, living in sunny Rothley where I understand, not a lot of people actually like them.

by Upsy Daisy 27.12.11 16:22

Well I would have to say that out of MANY, MANY oddities, this one jumped out at me and I thought...there is NO Way any innocent mother who knew nothing about what had just happened, would do this............ after she discovered that Madeleine had apparently 'been TAKEN'..she then decides to run back out of the same apartment and left her other two kids behind!!! Any mother worth her salt that thought a predator may still be lurking would grab the twins with all her might and run but NEVER leave them there to go and raise the alarm. Then trot off to wherever on campaigns and leave the twins behind in the same creche Madeleine used, not knowing at that point if the predator/child-catcher was still lurking around 'on campus'....... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]..............and there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many more.............. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jd 27.12.11 16:29

Upsy Daisy wrote:Well I would have to say that out of MANY, MANY oddities, this one jumped out at me and I thought...there is NO Way any innocent mother who knew nothing about what had just happened, would do this............ after she discovered that Madeleine had apparently 'been TAKEN'..she then decides to run back out of the same apartment and left her other two kids behind!!! Any mother worth her salt that thought a predator may still be lurking would grab the twins with all her might and run but NEVER leave them there to go and raise the alarm. Then trot off to wherever on campaigns and leave the twins behind in the same creche Madeleine used, not knowing at that point if the predator/child-catcher was still lurking around 'on campus'....... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]..............and there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many more.............. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If they were so close and could see clearly the apartment from the Tapas bar, so close that they could 100% be checking their kids are safe as they downed 14 bottles of NZ wine...then she could have screamed from the balcony to the others, she would't have to run away from the apartment

by Upsy Daisy 27.12.11 17:04

exactly jd!!! All staged! Pure and utter 'drama for a purpose'. In a real situation a Mum would scream on the spot clutching her two remaining kids and/or run with them. The only possible explanation has to be that she knew there was no bogey-man waiting in the wings.

by jd 27.12.11 17:08

Upsy Daisy wrote: The only possible explanation has to be that she knew there was no bogey-man waiting in the wings.

of course this is the only explanation, she was safe in the knowledge there was no abductor. Nobody would have run out and left their kids on their own if they felt a single ounce of an abductor or intruder

by **PeterMac** 27.12.11 18:33

If we believe the EVIDENCE of the 'google earth' or 'maps.google' measurement, it was only about 64.3 m as the crow flies, or in this case as the flow cries . That is not a great shouting distance, when as we know sound carries very effectively across water.
It is in fact roughly what you see from the centre of a cricket pitch to the boundary at each end.
Or in GM golfing terms, a very short chip onto the green.
In KM running terms, the length of an indoor sprint track. A good athlete would cover it in about 8 seconds.
In other words not a distance which would make it impossible to shout, scream, or whistle. Or at least to try, whilst keeping an eye on the remaining children - if they were there, of course - !
As a last resort one might then pick up the twins, shut the door to protect the remaining valuables, passports, video cameras, camera, phones, plane tickets, money, lap top computer/s, and run the full 120m down the lane, through reception, and round the pool, before dumping the twins with Granny Webster and going back to start the search. Calling out, all the time "Madeleine, Madeleine, Where are you ? This is mummy. Madeleine. Where are you ?"
Or not, as the case may be.

by Liz Eagles 27.12.11 20:47

PeterMac wrote:If we believe the EVIDENCE of the 'google earth' or 'maps.google' measurement, it was only about 64.3 m as the crow flies, or in this case as the flow cries . That is not a great shouting distance, when as we know sound carries very effectively across water.
It is in fact roughly what you see from the centre of a cricket pitch to the boundary at each end.
Or in GM golfing terms, a very short chip onto the green.
In KM running terms, the length of an indoor sprint track. A good athlete would cover it in about 8 seconds.
In other words not a distance which would make it impossible to shout, scream, or whistle. Or at least to try, whilst keeping an eye on the remaining children - if they were there, of course - !
As a last resort one might then pick up the twins, shut the door to protect the remaining valuables, passports, video cameras, camera, phones, plane tickets, money, lap top computer/s, and run the full 120m down the lane, through reception, and round the pool, before dumping the twins with Granny Webster and going back to start the search. Calling out, all the time "Madeleine, Madeleine, Where are you ? This is mummy. Madeleine. Where are you ?"
Or not, as the case may be.

This is the most poignant part of the whole sorry episode for me. Screaming 'Madeleine' would be a first instinct....screaming 'help' would too. Staying with the twins would be a natural thing....telephoning the Tapas Bar (whoops they didn't have phones with them). You are quite right, it was a short distance and sound would travel as it was quiet in the evening. One scream would have been all it would take to alert the entire place.

by littlepixie 27.12.11 23:59

I have wracked my brains as to when I stopped believing that Madeleine was abducted. I definitely believed them at first as when there was a "sighting" of her in Spain in the area I was, as we kept our eye open for her. By the time we went home and Kate & Gerry McCann hadn't appeared in the area to search for her I no longer believed them.
I remember searching online to see if anyone else was suspicious like me and that is when I stumbled across the Mirror forum then 3As. I saw people who didnt believe the parents ridiculed, exposed and attacked and told that black was white and that we all neglected our kids on holiday, that everybody did it. Then I knew for sure that no sane people would defend the parents so vehemently and I believed they were paid posters who are still doing the same thing today. So transparent and so predictable and so vile. Trying to defend a Scouse woman and her husband who neglected their kids (so they said) and appeared pissed on camera (whoosh cluck).

by scotclogs 28.12.11 4:56

Gillyspot wrote:
sammyc wrote:The fact that they went out jogging, amongst other things, whilst the Police and volunteers were searching for Madeleine. I will never forget the news images of them carrying on as normal barely a day after the 'abduction'. You wouldn't have been able to lift me off the floor if that was my child.

You and me both sammyc

JD I also agree that Kate taking time to choose her clothes and do make up and jewellery is at the very least extraordinary for a parent of an abducted child (surely worse than bereavement if Page 129 is anything to go on)

" You wouldn't have been able to lift me off the floor if that was my child."

yes me too

by jd 28.12.11 5:09

scotclogs wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:
sammyc wrote:The fact that they went out jogging, amongst other things, whilst the Police and volunteers were searching for Madeleine. I will never forget the news images of them carrying on as normal barely a day after the 'abduction'. You wouldn't have been able to lift me off the floor if that was my child.

You and me both sammyc

JD I also agree that Kate taking time to choose her clothes and do make up and jewellery is at the very least extraordinary for a parent of an abducted child (surely worse than bereavement if Page 129 is anything to go on)
" You wouldn't have been able to lift me off the floor if that was my child."

yes me too

The mccanns have always wanted the public to look at deliberate items
maddies eye
cuddlecat
hair bead
make up

by aiyoyo 28.12.11 7:42

I would like to know why cant people choose more than one options on the survey?

by Agent Dale 28.12.11 19:28

Hi all.

A few posts here have jogged my memory:

It being like a New Labour/Media onslaught
Finding out they had left the children unattended &
they were doctors
My girlfriend of the time saying they were probably guilty - straight away after seeing the news
The masonic symbolism

Then the lying about the shutters

Her eye
Cuddle Cat
Her name

So, I guess I doubted pretty quickly.

I thought it was to do with promoting micro-chipping children and she would be found
- but I was wrong there.

Love the forum and have been browsing for a week or 2, so I
thought I'd join and hopefully I can help x

big grin

by rainbow-fairy 28.12.11 20:04

Agent Dale wrote:Hi all.

A few posts here have jogged my memory:

It being like a New Labour/Media onslaught
Finding out they had left the children unattended &
they were doctors
My girlfriend of the time saying they were probably guilty - straight away after seeing the news
The masonic symbolism

Then the lying about the shutters

Her eye
Cuddle Cat
Her name

So, I guess I doubted pretty quickly.

I thought it was to do with promoting micro-chipping children and she would be found
- but I was wrong there.

Love the forum and have been browsing for a week or 2, so I
thought I'd join and hopefully I can help x

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

Nice to meet you Agent Dale and welcome!
Thank you for adding to my poll, look forward to hearing more from you Wink

by Agent Dale 28.12.11 20:17

^ Thanks for the welcome RF
yes

by rainbow-fairy 28.12.11 21:22

aiyoyo wrote:I would like to know why cant people choose more than one options on the survey?

I'm sorry, aiyoyo - that'll be my fault! I agonised for a long time over the wording of the poll. My first ever poll was hi-jacked by trolls because I worded it in a silly manner. I was a bit naïve, I guess.
This time around, I was more careful with the wording!
I did consider having multiple choice, but I thought the responses might be more interesting if posters could choose the main reason, then elaborate in a post the extra reasons. It seemed a good idea, and have had some fantastic responses.
Hope you had a good Christmas, aiyoyo :)

by aiyoyo 28.12.11 23:03

rainbow-fairy wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I would like to know why cant people choose more than one options on the survey?

I'm sorry, aiyoyo - that'll be my fault! I agonised for a long time over the wording of the poll. My first ever poll was hi-jacked by trolls because I worded it in a silly manner. I was a bit naïve, I guess.
This time around, I was more careful with the wording!
I did consider having multiple choice, but I thought the responses might be more interesting if posters could choose the main reason, then elaborate in a post the extra reasons. It seemed a good idea, and have had some fantastic responses.
Hope you had a good Christmas, aiyoyo :)

Imho, a one-choice answer may not be an accurate representation of people's views.since there are more than two choices to choose from.

When I saw the survey I immediately wanted to tick a few boxes.
It was not just one factor, but several factors that led me to be skeptical of their story. So I feel a multiple choice one would be more accurate reflection from my viewpoint.

If others feel the one-choice only answer is representative of the their answer then you've nailed it.
There was nothing wrong with your wordings. In fact I thought they were rather good.

And, thank you I had a splendid Christmas, and very much looking forward to the New Year. I hope you have had a Wonderful Christmas too.

by rainbow-fairy 28.12.11 23:35

aiyoyo wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I would like to know why cant people choose more than one options on the survey?

I'm sorry, aiyoyo - that'll be my fault! I agonised for a long time over the wording of the poll. My first ever poll was hijacked by trolls because I worded it in a silly manner. I was a bit naïve, I guess.
This time around, I was more careful with the wording!
I did consider having multiple choice, but I thought the responses might be more interesting if posters could choose the main reason, then elaborate in a post the extra reasons. It seemed a good idea, and have had some fantastic responses.
Hope you had a good Christmas, aiyoyo :)

Imho, a one-choice answer may not be an accurate representation of people's views. since there are more than two choices to choose from.

When I saw the survey I immediately wanted to tick a few boxes.
It was not just one factor, but several factors that led me to be skeptical of their story. So I feel a multiple choice one would be more accurate reflection from my viewpoint.

If others feel the one-choice only answer is representative of the their answer then you've nailed it.
There was nothing wrong with your wordings. In fact I thought they were rather good.

And, thank you I had a splendid Christmas, and very much looking forward to the New Year. I hope you have had a Wonderful Christmas too.

Thank you aiyoyo, yes me and my two boys had a lovely Christmas. It was exhausting trying to get everything sorted seeing as its just me (I'm mum, dad, chef, taxi, handy person, gardener etc etc etc Wink

) but seeing their happy faces on Christmas morning made all the hassle worthwhile! I love my boys so much, bless 'em. Yes I'm looking forward to 2012 very much, I feel it may be justice for Maddie beginning this year...

I can totally get what you mean about multiple choice, I am doubting my decision now! A couple of other posters also mentioned they had trouble narrowing it down!
I know how that feels, because I had trouble narrowing it down to just ten, for the poll! There are so many doubtful things, in fact just about everything Team McCann do is suspicious! I think that in the end I opted to have it as open-ended so new members and posters could add their reasons BUT I had considered a time limit of a fortnight. I wouldn't want to put money on which way I did it, if it was only a fortnight maybe I'll re-issue the poll as multiple choice. Will have to see.

by jd 29.12.11 2:11

Mccanns and all your cronies should take note (not that you care about anyone but yourselves)...There is not ONE single vote that Amarals Book changed peoples minds about your abduction fairy tale..NOT ONE!! This book had zero influence on what people think. So why are you still trying to put this man into ground you nasty vermin creatures. What he has said has had no influence whatsoever

2/3rd's of people who doubted the mccanns abduction fairy tale was because of.....THE MCCANNS!!

by oakeso 20.10.13 17:39

I'm sure it's been raised repeatedly - if so apologies.

If Madeleine had been abducted why did the McCanns state it as fact to Pamela Fenn and not ask her if she had seen/noticed anything, for all they knew Madeleine could have been in anyone's care in the apartments if she had been noticed wandering around lost. It's bad enough that GM referred to M as "a little girl" and not mention her name or the fact that she was his daughter - and that he refused the use of a phone when you'd think another call wouldn't go astray given the circumstances. Surely you'd be desperate for any information a neighbour could give?

by russiandoll 20.10.13 19:23

Gut instinct told me something was " off " from the start, but urgent family matters meant that until 2010 I did not have time to read up on the case. Long term absence from work due to a long term medical condition meant I had a lot of free time. I love to read and some of the files got my interest piqued...then the big thing was the book, not Amaral's but Kate's. Did not read GA's book until 2012. having joined this forum Autumn 2011 as soon as I had returned Kate's book to the library.

Although like many I guess, I felt angry at her attitude towards Portuguese police what with Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Jane sitting in a car like Sooty's van and the rest....

it was the chapters to do with the holiday which raised an eyebrow, particularly the why didn't you come incident and her question

was the crying when they were having their bath [ natural question : who was bathing them if you and Gerry didn't hear the crying Kate?]

and the 10pm check, the toing and froing between the bedroom and patio doors......over -egging the pudding.
I had seen a video where Gerry was with one of the men in the group telling him that until the Thursday he had not put his head in the room and here was Kate saying that they were not only listening on their checks but looking.
Then at 10 pm she noticed a door open too wide, started to pull it to [ WITHOUT LOOKING ] then it slammed shut.
Only then did she reopen it and look in at her 3 children.

Then came the remainder of the files.