A couple of questions ...........

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 22:29

I have always thought they all acted very much on impulse.

I think it's possible that KM could have been persuaded that if it were not possible to help Madeleine (if she had died in an accident) that at least she could save her other children from being taken into care, or save themselves from being held responsible for her death.

Would anyone have gone to the trouble of opening the window and leaving the lichen untouched? Well, the whole window thing wasn't thought through very well at all for several reasons was it?

And the fund? At the outset of this the fund hadn't been thought of. I don't think they actually asked for the money (I think that came about because people desperately wanted to help a family in need, in the uk there had been two recent cases which had deeply affected people - that of friends Holly and Jessica, and the case of Sarah Payne, by the time of Madeleine's disappearance, I think people felt a need to actually do something to help) How could the Mccann's possibly refuse the money once it was offered? I seem to recall GM saying at one stage (quite soon after Madeleine disappeared) that they wanted to do something with the fund money to help other missing children ........

by Ollie1 08.03.13 22:35

[quote="suzyjohnson"]Sorry, I can't understand the confusion here -

My argument was that someone (GM or another person) had opened the windows and the shutters just prior to 10pm from the inside of apartment 5A, to make it look as though an abductor had entered the apartment through the window, That whoever had done this had tried not to leave fingerprints (although I take your point Tigger, that wiping the window /sills would've left smears)

The shutter was down - why? If they had raised the shutter to make it look like the abductor had raised it, why did they then lower it again? it makes no sense, they would of left it raised.

by Ollie1 08.03.13 22:40

suzyjohnson wrote:I have always thought they all acted very much on impulse.
I seem to recall GM saying at one stage (quite soon after Madeleine disappeared) that they wanted to do something with the fund money to help other missing children ........

I don't know if GM did say that, but one of the family said it would be used for legal expenses. The McCanns have never used a penny of the 'fund' to help other missing children. If GM did say that them IMO it's another McCann lie.

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 22:53

'The shutter was down - why? If they had raised the shutter to make it look like the abductor had raised it, why did they then lower it again? it makes no sense, they would of left it raised'.

Yes, I see your point here Ollie1, I think the Mccann's (and others) took it as read that the police / public would believe them without question.

With regard to the fund, yes I remember someone saying the fund would be used for legal expenses (which it has been). I think GM may have intended to channel the fund towards benefiting other missing children (about 3 months after Madeleine's disappearance he said something about the long term goals of the fund), in the event though they have needed to draw on substantial sums to pay legal expenses (much more than GM didn't envisage at the outset)

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 23:00

Further, at the time I thought it was a very strange comment for GM to make because Madeleine had only been missing for a few months, there was every reason to continue the search for her, and yet GM was considering the long term goals to redirect the fund towards looking for other missing children? To me it sounded as though he was giving up on Madeleine, and it crossed my mind, was the reason for that because he already knew what had happened to her?

Likewise, the reconstruction. How could the Tapas group refuse to take part in a reconstruction if there was any chance whatsoever of recovering a lost child?

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 23:03

'in the event though they have needed to draw on substantial sums to pay legal expenses (much more than GM didn't envisage at the outset)'

Sorry, this should read. 'in the event though they have needed to draw on substantial sums to pay legal expenses (much more so than GM envisaged at the outset)