How could she have washed "cuddle cat" ??

by susie45 20.10.13 18:34

For me that was a "biggie",,, especially reading the sad comments of James Bulgers, mother Denise who stated she still sleeps with a t shirt of his ( 20 years later) as she can still smell him,,and it is all she has of him,,,,,..

For me the parents, behaviour from the beginning was suspicious,,, I don't believe if that had happened to me ( which it would never have as I would never have left my daughter alone) that I could even bring myself to face the press as I would be stricken with grief and shame,,,,,,,,As time has gone on the more I read about the case ( and that is A LOT) my own experiences as a child protection worker and the daughter of a retired senior police detective( who has his own thoughts on what happened) I feel very strongly that there is very little information to support an abduction theory,,,,,,,also that we ( the general public) are being fed a lot of red herrings,,,,,,I further believe these people, (Parents and tapas friends) have been very protected by the "powers that be",,,and have not been throroughly investigated,( background checks,, child care competence,,etc etc) as should they have,, this has ensured that the investigations have become some what of a joke

by hotrot 20.10.13 18:40

Gut feeling the moment I read the newspaper the following morning and saw a photograph of the parents. Mother had lipstick and earrings. That planted a tiny seed immediately although probably shouldn't have. Following this, the behaviour was relentlessly fishy and continues to be. It continues to be an inordinately bizarre case.

by worriedmum 20.10.13 19:16

oakeso wrote: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?

That's a really good point oakeso.

In fact you'd ask if you could go and talk to her wouldn't you? It was odd IMO how they refused Jez Wilkins' offer of help too.

by Sietah 20.10.13 20:11

When they did not feel quilty, they did nothing wrong. (leaving the kids on their own)

by Smokeandmirrors 20.10.13 20:14

worriedmum wrote:
oakeso wrote: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?
That's a really good point oakeso.

In fact you'd ask if you could go and talk to her wouldn't you? It was odd IMO how they refused Jez Wilkins' offer of help too.

Yes, as far as I recall, NONE of the Tapas cronies saw fit to rush around the immediate residences asking if anyone saw anything. Oh no, it was off to "phone a friend" and make posters at the reception on the invisible printer.

by plebgate 20.10.13 20:19

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
oakeso wrote: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?
That's a really good point oakeso.

In fact you'd ask if you could go and talk to her wouldn't you? It was odd IMO how they refused Jez Wilkins' offer of help too.
Yes, as far as I recall, NONE of the Tapas cronies saw fit to rush around the immediate residences asking if anyone saw anything. Oh no, it was off to "phone a friend" and make posters at the reception on the invisible printer.

Yes good point Oakeso - instead of which I read that they were abusive to/about Mrs. Fenn. Charming I'm sure.

Doctors are trained to respect elderly people aren't they?

by Cerinthe 20.10.13 20:41

I found it very difficult to watch the initial coverage in the media because I felt like I was being manipulated. All the hype - the minute's silence at football games, the involvement of celebrities, the visit to the Pope - seemed over the top and jarring. Also pointless. I still felt sorry for the parents though, but thought they were making a mistake running a publicity campaign when it would be the police whose investigations would get their daughter back for them.

Then they were made arguidos and I went online immediately to find out what was really going on and found forums where people were documenting discrepancies and evidence and it was pretty clear what had really happened, including their attempt to dupe us with their marketing/publicity campaign. The clincher was the evidence of the dogs. It still breaks my heart that it was two animals who are only able to tell the truth who spoke up for Madeleine and what happened to her, not her parents.

Like jd said in 2011, the McCanns should take note that it was their behaviour that made people suspicious - not one person who voted here says they were influenced by Amaral's book.

by stumo 20.10.13 21:03

When i first saw the gruesome twosome i immediately thought that something wasn't right, no proper emotion especially from Kate and Gerry looking like he was in a business meeting.

It really hit home when I saw the images of them out jogging etc just days after the event, looking like they were doing a commercial.

I didn't take any interest in the case until a couple of years ago when i got sick of seeing the McScammers on TV and in the papers.

When the family dog went missing i spent two days riding around on my bicycle looking for her and only stopped when i found her in a animal sanctuary that i previously didn't know existed.

How anyone could go jogging with their child missing to preserve "normality" is beyond me.

by Vicky87 22.10.13 14:53

I donated to the fund. Then for some reason wondered how money would really help, considering police and such were on the case already. Did some reading around..watched interviews and such during which the McCanns (especially Gerry) behaved 'oddly', then found out about the dogs and such, read conflicting statements..and it went from there.

by Dazinho 22.10.13 19:38

First time poster - wanted to say first up that there are some fantastic insights, knowledge and plenty of information not presented by the mainstream media.

If anyone has ever seen the dark comedy series 'Monkey Dust' there's a sketch in one of the later series where a woman called Fran becomes a celebrity off the back of her daughter Rebecca going missing. She appears on chat shows, releases a dire 'hit' record and it then cuts to her talking to her mates about make-up and camera angles while watching herself on TV.

Anyway, the daughter turns up and Fran, realising her fifteen minutes of fame are over, gives her £100 and tells her to swivel. The tables are turned when Rebecca launches her own showbiz career off the back of Fran's neglect.

What struck me most about the McCann's was that they became B-listers, pretty much overnight, as a result of something that anyone looking at it rationally would see them as being at least partly responsible for. They seemed much more concerned with keeping themselves in the public eye and trying to defend their own actions than actually finding their own child.

The reason given for this - awareness - made no sense whatsoever. Once the story has broken in the media then surely only the authorities need constantly be 'aware' of it?.

Then there was the campaign fund, the purpose of which was never adequately explained at the time. Looking back, it seems like some sick experiment to guage the 'no questions asked' tendencies of good-natured people who want to do what they can.

The clincher for me was probably the determination to 'bring the case home' and British interference with a foreign investigation. Can you imagine the uproar if this were the other way round?. There also seemed to be this borderline xenophobia about the Portugese 'not to be trusted' and that 'good old British people would never do a thing like that - why are they even looking at the McCanns?'.

The mainstream media perpetuated this quite disgusting smear against a whole country when it looks in reality like Amaral was the person taking the case by far the most seriously.

Again, imagine if the Portugese media said this about us - there would (rightly) be uproar.

It's a PORTUGESE case - why are Scotland Yard 'investigating' it even now and getting nowhere while the person determined to uncover the truth was sidelined?

From there I found resources like this one, for which I'm immensely grateful - thanks again.

by iamfreecanigo 22.10.13 22:50

What got me was the fact the media clearly did not mention the fact they left 3 children under the age of 4 in an unlocked apartment in a foreign county while they went out drinking, its clear the kids were a burden for them, in the crèche to 5:30pm, then in bed for 7:30.

It annoyed me that they were not getting bad publicity for it, people were making out they were the victims, no it was your daughter, you are convinced is being raped by paedos, but you can put that aside and go for a jog? Also their obvious sad face, such bad acting.

What really got me though was, around the same time, there was a working class woman who left her 8 year old kids alone to go to work, in a locked house, the police arrested her and her name was muck in the press, while the mccanns were being heralded as saints.

by Research_Reader 26.10.13 15:33

The the fact that the whole story seemed implausible, that the parents acted recklessly leaving their children in the first place and that Gerry's whole demeanour, body language, facial expressions etc give me a strong intuitive feeling of someone both untrustworthy and with barely concealed anger/controlling-nature/possible violent nature always just below the surface.

by Mikahlina 26.10.13 17:02

The pair of them had dry eyes , not a tear in sight , Kate McCann did not look like the mother of a child that had supposedly just been abducted , she looked downright nervous , and Gerry McCann looked way to comfortable in front of the TV cameras , I remember well what the two sets of parents of the the Soham little girls looked and acted like , devastated , distraught , helpless , their grief was plain to see . The McCanns faces told a very different story than the one that was coming from their mouths .

by Lance De Boils 26.10.13 18:09

I remember hearing this news story on the morning of 4th May '07.

My initial reaction was, "You what? They left the kids on their own and went out? Doctors?"

I also thought, "Eh? Why would the uncle fly home when his niece is missing?"***

Then, as a parent, I felt that awful dread that perhaps only a parent could feel.

Then, later, when the McCanns gave that statement, with Gerry reading from a piece of paper, "wurds cannot describe..." I thought, "Ooer. How robotic and unnatural. They don't look as I would expect the parents of a missing child to look. Too scripted, too controlled, too cold."

And that was just the very beginning.

*** Yes, I know this has been discussed here, there and everywhere - I am certain that in the very first news item I saw about this case, the reporter said that one of the group was understood to have already flown home and that person was believed to be the little girls' uncle.
I KNOW that this cannot be corroborated because it was said once and once only (that I'm aware of) and all trace of that comment was very quickly whooshed. Maybe because it was said in error. Or maybe not. Regardless, my intention is not now to start a debate about whether it was said or not!

by oakeso 26.10.13 18:15

Lance De Boils wrote:And that was just the very beginning.

*** Yes, I know this has been discussed here, there and everywhere - I am certain that in the very first news item I saw about this case, the reporter said that one of the group was understood to have already flown home and that person was believed to be the little girls' uncle.
I KNOW that this cannot be corroborated because it was said once and once only (that I'm aware of) and all trace of that comment was very quickly whooshed. Maybe because it was said in error. Or maybe not. Regardless, my intention is not now to start a debate about whether it was said or not!

That's very interesting, LDB, I've never seen it in print but always suspected there was a McCann family member there before the alarm was raised.

by **tigger** 26.10.13 18:33

Dazinho wrote:First time poster - wanted to say first up that there are some fantastic insights, knowledge and plenty of information not presented by the mainstream media.

If anyone has ever seen the dark comedy series 'Monkey Dust' there's a sketch in one of the later series where a woman called Fran becomes a celebrity off the back of her daughter Rebecca going missing. She appears on chat shows, releases a dire 'hit' record and it then cuts to her talking to her mates about make-up and camera angles while watching herself on TV.

Anyway, the daughter turns up and Fran, realising her fifteen minutes of fame are over, gives her £100 and tells her to swivel. The tables are turned when Rebecca launches her own showbiz career off the back of Fran's neglect.

What struck me most about the McCann's was that they became B-listers, pretty much overnight, as a result of something that anyone looking at it rationally would see them as being at least partly responsible for. They seemed much more concerned with keeping themselves in the public eye and trying to defend their own actions than actually finding their own child.

The reason given for this - awareness - made no sense whatsoever. Once the story has broken in the media then surely only the authorities need constantly be 'aware' of it?.

Then there was the campaign fund, the purpose of which was never adequately explained at the time. Looking back, it seems like some sick experiment to guage the 'no questions asked' tendencies of good-natured people who want to do what they can.

The clincher for me was probably the determination to 'bring the case home' and British interference with a foreign investigation. Can you imagine the uproar if this were the other way round?. There also seemed to be this borderline xenophobia about the Portugese 'not to be trusted' and that 'good old British people would never do a thing like that - why are they even looking at the McCanns?'.

The mainstream media perpetuated this quite disgusting smear against a whole country when it looks in reality like Amaral was the person taking the case by far the most seriously.

Again, imagine if the Portugese media said this about us - there would (rightly) be uproar.

It's a PORTUGESE case - why are Scotland Yard 'investigating' it even now and getting nowhere while the person determined to uncover the truth was sidelined?

From there I found resources like this one, for which I'm immensely grateful - thanks again.

B-listers! big grin

That must hurt if the McCs should read this. I'm sure they thought they were A- listers.
Terrific first post by the way. roses

by Lance De Boils 26.10.13 18:40

oakeso wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:And that was just the very beginning.

*** Yes, I know this has been discussed here, there and everywhere - I am certain that in the very first news item I saw about this case, the reporter said that one of the group was understood to have already flown home and that person was believed to be the little girls' uncle.
I KNOW that this cannot be corroborated because it was said once and once only (that I'm aware of) and all trace of that comment was very quickly whooshed. Maybe because it was said in error. Or maybe not. Regardless, my intention is not now to start a debate about whether it was said or not!
That's very interesting, LDB, I've never seen it in print but always suspected there was a McCann family member there before the alarm was raised.

Yes. I heard it. Others heard it. But we can't prove it. It may have been a genuine mistake, or it may not. But as all trace of it has gone, we can't quote accurately or listen to it again. It was never in print. Therefore, there is really nothing to be gained by debating it, in my opinion. Any such discussion in the past (on other fora) has very quickly descended into tit-for-tat bickering. smilie

by Guest 26.10.13 18:45

Lance De Boils wrote:
oakeso wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:And that was just the very beginning.

*** Yes, I know this has been discussed here, there and everywhere - I am certain that in the very first news item I saw about this case, the reporter said that one of the group was understood to have already flown home and that person was believed to be the little girls' uncle.
I KNOW that this cannot be corroborated because it was said once and once only (that I'm aware of) and all trace of that comment was very quickly whooshed. Maybe because it was said in error. Or maybe not. Regardless, my intention is not now to start a debate about whether it was said or not!
That's very interesting, LDB, I've never seen it in print but always suspected there was a McCann family member there before the alarm was raised.
Yes. I heard it. Others heard it. But we can't prove it. It may have been a genuine mistake, or it may not. But as all trace of it has gone, we can't quote accurately or listen to it again. It was never in print. Therefore, there is really nothing to be gained by debating it, in my opinion. Any such discussion in the past (on other fora) has very quickly descended into tit-for-tat bickering.

LdB, I can vaguely remember something about that too. I recall something about a row, but my memory is not so good as it was big grin

There were lots of discussions about it too on the forums. As you say it may have been an error, but like many things from back then its all gone.

by Dazinho 26.10.13 22:08

tigger wrote:
Dazinho wrote:First time poster - wanted to say first up that there are some fantastic insights, knowledge and plenty of information not presented by the mainstream media.

If anyone has ever seen the dark comedy series 'Monkey Dust' there's a sketch in one of the later series where a woman called Fran becomes a celebrity off the back of her daughter Rebecca going missing. She appears on chat shows, releases a dire 'hit' record and it then cuts to her talking to her mates about make-up and camera angles while watching herself on TV.

Anyway, the daughter turns up and Fran, realising her fifteen minutes of fame are over, gives her £100 and tells her to swivel. The tables are turned when Rebecca launches her own showbiz career off the back of Fran's neglect.

What struck me most about the McCann's was that they became B-listers, pretty much overnight, as a result of something that anyone looking at it rationally would see them as being at least partly responsible for. They seemed much more concerned with keeping themselves in the public eye and trying to defend their own actions than actually finding their own child.

The reason given for this - awareness - made no sense whatsoever. Once the story has broken in the media then surely only the authorities need constantly be 'aware' of it?.

Then there was the campaign fund, the purpose of which was never adequately explained at the time. Looking back, it seems like some sick experiment to guage the 'no questions asked' tendencies of good-natured people who want to do what they can.

The clincher for me was probably the determination to 'bring the case home' and British interference with a foreign investigation. Can you imagine the uproar if this were the other way round?. There also seemed to be this borderline xenophobia about the Portugese 'not to be trusted' and that 'good old British people would never do a thing like that - why are they even looking at the McCanns?'.

The mainstream media perpetuated this quite disgusting smear against a whole country when it looks in reality like Amaral was the person taking the case by far the most seriously.

Again, imagine if the Portugese media said this about us - there would (rightly) be uproar.

It's a PORTUGESE case - why are Scotland Yard 'investigating' it even now and getting nowhere while the person determined to uncover the truth was sidelined?

From there I found resources like this one, for which I'm immensely grateful - thanks again.
B-listers! That must hurt if the McCs should read this. I'm sure they thought they were A- listers.
Terrific first post by the way.

Thanks - can see one of them being on Celebrity Big Brother, Love Island or Get Me Outa Here in a few years time. Come to think of it, that might just do them more damage than anyone would first imagine...

by prickles78 27.10.13 10:02

I'm fairly new to all this, I remember when it all happened and feeling sorry for the parents but never put much thought into it having pretty much accepted the whole abduction story. I do remember however, thinking that both parents seemed ever so slightly robotic and didn't display the amount of emotion on tv appearances that I would have expected. I only really started thinking about it again when the crimewatch programme a week or so ago was shown and it was at that point that I thought I would have a look and see if I could find in terms of evidence, case facts etc. And since then I've been blown away by just how wrong everything about this case seems to be. To me, I can't understand the leaving of the babies in the first instance, the failure of the parents to physically search for ther daughter in the immediate moments after it was discovered that she was 'missing', a lack of emotion in interviews since that time, the well documented discrepancies in the group's stories, the cadaver dogs, the useage of funds not to search for Madeleine but seemingly, to pay for pr and legal fees etc..the timing of crimewatch to coincide with the libel trial, the e-fits that have suddenly surfaced after all this time...the list just goes on!!!

by Sceneset 27.10.13 10:51

We were on holiday abroad.My son was 2 and the Maddie news was still in my mind.My husband wanted to leave our son in the room of a tiny, three roomed hotel and go to the restaurant/ bar in the room beneath us to eat.I refused and sat on the balcony and my husband complained about my 'ridiculousness' and went to the bar alone and we had the food brought upstairs later instead.I used the Maddie case as my reasoning for not joining him. When we were home I google searched the case out of interest re our holiday 'row' and stumbled across a few other theories. I couldn't understand how especially the mothers could feel comfortable with dining/ drinking so far away from the children with of all things a swimming pool between them and the possibility of accidents, fire or just general waking up and being worried as they were alone. The parents' interviews made me feel uncomfortable so I kept on reading and eventually found this, and other sites.
When I was very small and living abroad I was put outside, in the shade as mothers did then, for an afternoon nap in my pram. A woman entered the garden and picked me up. My mother spotted her and rushed out and there was lots of shouting and confusion. She may have just been being 'protective' of an ' unattended'little one as it was a very child friendly society, or she may have been 'stealing'' me. I remembered this years later unprompted by my mother and this too; when I was a mother myself, re in forced me to recognise, as most people do, that you have to keep your children in sight at all times.

by prickles78 27.10.13 12:08

It would seem that most people didn't doubt the abduction story because of GA's book or any other publication and have only read it, and other books, reports on the case etc because of an underlying feeling that the parents were a) completely and strangely irresponsible in their actions at the start and b) that their behaviour since that time has been..well questionable to say the least. I think it's fair to say that when you have a nagging doubt about something you then try to find out more so that you can get some kind of answer. And in this case, when you do look for answers you see that there may be no definitive conclusion as yet, but the evidence just doesn't add up to the story that is being presented and in fact, points to something far more sinister.

by juliet 27.10.13 12:21

From the start I though Kate McCann didn't seem genuinely devastated: she looked shifty and as if she was trying to act suitable emotion. That "she's lovely" comment seemed both banal and false. That "they've taken her" reaction also sounded alarm bells. Even so I didn't really articulate my thoughts to other people until the news of the forensic tests etc was broadcast.

by Research_Reader 27.10.13 14:22

Sceneset, I just wanted to say I completely agree with your position on not leaving the children alone, and I'm a man.

by Guest 27.10.13 16:19

This is what Maman for herself marks as the moment, she thought something was wrong: evening May 4, 2007. As her eyesight is very poor, she thought is was family member or friend, who made the statement. When she was told it was the father, she said: " No ...... There something wrong there."

For me it is definitely not just the reading from a paper, but ... the artificial putting his arm around Kate's shoulder and taking it back again. That must have been in the script too ...