WHAT DOES KATE "KNOW"?

by worriedmum 07.07.14 18:44

Kate McCann has on several occasions publicly alluded to something which 'she knows' which is apparently of great significance to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted.

In the MCanns' first interview, with Ian Woods of Sky, Kate says 'that it was during one of her checks that she discovered Madeleine was gone', and that she can't really go into any details about that', about 20 seconds in...

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

She says it here, outside the Lisbon Court, at about 4.00 mins onwards,

''Portuguese Journalist: What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have....

Kate McCann: I know. I was there. I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw.

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

So what does she 'know'?

by Guest 07.07.14 18:52

That her daughter wasn't abducted.

by kimHager 12.07.14 4:23

Just like Gerry's "when we found her "comment

by Latetothecase 12.07.14 5:25

Is it something to do with toys being laid out? Didn't Clarence or someone make a slip up mentioning that?

by joel27 12.07.14 8:05

The first clip and second are a great example of how to not answer a question. I guess by the first clip CM had been at work, give me the list of questions before the interview and then had sat and they had worked the answers the first part is so well done its all slow measured responses. The answer to the awkward question "I cant really go into any details" just shuts the question down. Its less measured outside court the questions were putting pressure on GM but Kate who says little again shuts the question down "I know what I saw. " Both answers give nothing away. The trouble in both is not whats said but whats not said by not answering that leaves you wondering. If what she knows is so clear so certain for her to be certain it was an adbuction why not answer the question share it with everyone ?

by heinzbeanz 12.07.14 9:24

If I were a parent whose child had gone missing, presumably abducted... I struggle to see how I would feel "stronger and more hopeful" as time went on, with absolutely no clue as to what had happened to her.

In that first interview, with Ian Woods, Kate states that she did feel negative at first but 'we don't now'.

I just cannot understand this.

My daughter aged 8 wandered off on holiday a couple of months ago. She was gone for five to ten minutes. It was the most horrific ten minutes of my whole life. With every passing minute my thoughts got darker and more desperate. I was terrified and so scared for her. I was screaming and screaming her name, running up and back to where she last was, not wanting to move toofar in case she came back and we weren't there, but feeling utterly unable to stand still. My husband told me to stay put with my younger child in the pram, in case she came back. It was horrific.

When she was found, I collapsed on to her in a sobbing heap. Even once she was found, for days my head would go over all the possible scenarios - fallen, injured, knocked over, gone off willingly with a stranger, been taken.... while she was missing I panicked, trying to recall the details of the last time we had spoken about stranger danger and what exactly I had said to her re where to go if she got lost on holiday.

I just do not believe the McCanns reactions.

I cannot understand a parent becoming stronger and more hopeful as time goes on. I look at this case through my parent eyes and I just don't see a thing that seems natural about their responses.

by Rasputin 12.07.14 9:33

Kate knows enough not to expend any time or physical effort searching immediately after the ' curtain call ' of the alarm is raised , same can be said for her friends .

by joel27 12.07.14 9:55

The other part of course is Gerry, I get more worried by his responses when under pressure its always along the lines of show me the body, but its not that blunt,the DNA comment when the police were searching recently, not if they find her but if they find something with DNA. Its his safe answer to me like he knows there is no chance that anything other than DNA will be found. The second interview back then its his shut down answer to a question he really has no wish to answer, the pressure is mounting and he wants to get out of there, and he fires the one answer that he knows will work. Opinion of course but I dont understand it I go back to Keith Bennetts mum desperate for him to be found if only to give him a proper burial. Slightly different that there is hope of her being found alive you could argue but the acceptance by them both that something moe sinster happened that lack of desire to find her body is another area where doubt comes into everything they say. Opinion I know but its something that bothers me about the responses when under pressure.

by plebgate 12.07.14 10:09

worriedmum wrote:Kate McCann has on several occasions publicly alluded to something which 'she knows' which is apparently of great significance to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted.

In the MCanns' first interview, with Ian Woods of Sky, Kate says 'that it was during one of her checks that she discovered Madeleine was gone', and that she can't really go into any details about that', about 20 seconds in...

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

She says it here, outside the Lisbon Court, at about 4.00 mins onwards,

''Portuguese Journalist: What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have....

Kate McCann: I know. I was there. I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw.

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

So what does she 'know'?

Did she ever tell the Pt. police what she knows before they shelved the case?

by joel27 12.07.14 10:33

It extends even further if you think about it, take this week the dogs episode in court, when digging yourself into a hole shut up is the first rule, yet Gerry carried on digging until he was told to shut up. Why was it so important, again you can take the parent not wanting to accept anything has happened, yet thats the reverse of what they have said. Therefore the opinion I have is that there was another reason IF you take the view they know what happened then one thing that challenges the story is the evidence from the dogs it has to be challenged it has to be dismissed its to damming. Yes if you want the story you told to be believed it has at all cost to be dismissed. But no if you accept that something happened, its not then dismiss it , it becomes a concern, the more believable view would be we hope pray that she has come to no harm, but obviously there are other signs that really concern worry us (like the dogs even if not mentioned specifically) but until anything is found we have to maintain the hope the belief continue to search. The dogs then are not dismissed they are accepted and the why arriving from the non acceptance turns the spotlight back to the original story we are asked to believe. That view is mine of course not even suggesting its fact as is everything I write on here opinion.

Just my view but its what said however considered or when under pressure , or even in court that leaves the biggest impression.

by Bishop Brennan 12.07.14 16:17

joel27 wrote:It extends even further if you think about it, take this week the dogs episode in court, when digging yourself into a hole shut up is the first rule, yet Gerry carried on digging until he was told to shut up.

Indeed, it's a very good rule of thumb. Mentioning the dogs was in fact another own goal. It sounded weak and desperate - especially given that the judge told him to zip it ! The MSM have been very much 'on script' these past years and have NEVER ONCE mentioned the dogs - even when they were being used to check Malinka's car, and the nearby commercial premises. It would have been entirely reasonable of the MSM to point out that the dogs had already checked several cars (and alerted at the McCanns). They could also have pointed out that they have already checked several premises (and alerted at the McCanns).

So the dogs remain a massive problem. So big that instead of ignoring it, he tries to say "they didn't spot anything". An extraordinary statement given that the video has been seen by millions; and Grimes' report is available for all to read. What was he thinking? Normally he sticks to "there is no evidence to suggest...." rather than stating something he knows to be untrue. But here he went on record with something he knows for certain is not the case. Those dogs DID signal - multiple times - and on McCann related items only.

by kimHager 12.07.14 17:30

They ( mccanns, JT )all make references to how they was there when "it" happened and know what it was so... Does it make any sense that if "it" was an abduction with the ammount of times someone checked on the children they would have in all likely hood ran into the abductor and when the alarm was raised they all would have been looking for her. The " abduction " couldn't have been more than 30 minutes or so prior so she had a good chance of being found. But that is * if * the children were being checked regularly and if the timeline was correct. No going out searching, no looking in at "all" of the mccanns children, and if it was a pedophile how did the mccanns figure that and then it was " they" so now a pedophile couple did "it" which makes no sense unless they knew the couple and exactly what "it" was that they did.........

by joel27 12.07.14 19:32

kimHager wrote:They ( mccanns, JT )all make references to how they was there when "it" happened and know what it was so... Does it make any sense that if "it" was an abduction with the ammount of times someone checked on the children they would have in all likely hood ran into the abductor and when the alarm was raised they all would have been looking for her. The " abduction " couldn't have been more than 30 minutes or so prior so she had a good chance of being found. But that is * if * the children were being checked regularly and if the timeline was correct. No going out searching, no looking in at "all" of the mccanns children, and if it was a pedophile how did the mccanns figure that and then it was " they" so now a pedophile couple did "it" which makes no sense unless they knew the couple and exactly what "it" was that they did.........

They the use of and the recent additions of she as well as he, its interesting thats been added to the recent interviews. I am guessing or is it opinion its a reference to the couple who went in to calm the crying Maddie the night before. They seem to come into the story and then are dropped. Last year at least one paper was reporting they were searching for the couple as part of OG. Its another strange story I would guess they are very much key to the story it was used to explain the they have taken her cry from Kate. Trouble is they , he/she have never been found in all the publicity around the case you think they might of come forward certainly in the early days. Just they did not and there lies the question who reported the couple going into the apartment in the first place, was it a start of a cover story that was dropped at the time, it blows the robbery story why are OG still using that if the McCanns they is the view they have taken. But using the same thought why is it now being slowly dropped back into the storyline was it trying to appease OG in a line now no longer being looked at, is it a way of trying to change the focus of OG, or has someone come to close to the real events or taking the story so long used apart. Whatever its in my opinion another example or another reason to listen closly to what they say but at the same time questioning why.

by kimHager 12.07.14 21:35

Hmmm yes the couple who came in...wondered awhile if they were real or not....i think IF there was acouple would be two tapas individuals...remember JT's comment "when i carried her" slip of the errm tongue there.Or perhaps it was another red herring.

by worriedmum 14.07.14 14:47

Just seen this on another thread,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Kate McCann: My struggle to control 'very difficult' Madeleine

Last updated at 19:06 17 September 2007

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

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

by Marcha 15.07.14 21:58

The more I read the more frustrated I get .We all know it looks like no charges will be brought, even though the whole case is a sham. Poor Madeleine God bless her wherever she is.