What were they doing then because they were not looking after their three children!!
McCanns going too far?
- Thread starter Moley
- Start date
What were they doing then because they were not looking after their three children!!
And I don't think it's something we'll ever get.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
WEll the timeline, supposedly according to wiki is the Dr who checked on them at 9.30, Kate checked on them at 10pm and called the police within 10 minutes but the police report the first logged call of the incident at 11.50pm . Thats just a teeny tiny bit of time in which "something" could have happened.
Thats assuming the kid was ever in that room. I couldn't tell you what happened, I wasn't there but everything is just so suspect. Has all the fund money been spent on a dozen teams of private investigators and ex FBI, interpol and spanish police investigators available for private hire? or is the money barely being spent and on first class tickets traveling around looking for the kid just by her parents, specialist investigators as they are seemingly waiting for everyone to just assume the kid is dead feel sorry for them and not expect their money back eventually just having it because theres nothing left to do with it?
I mean, could they have simply killed her out on a day trip somewhere, buried her miles and miles away with no chance of ever being found. Gone back, carried a bundle of clothes in a blanket looking like carrying a small child. stuff a bed with a pillow with the people "checking" on them simply sticking head into the room and being lazy, not actually checking the kid was there if the kid "appeared" to be in the bed.
Like I said, who knows, theres a couple billion possibilities of what could have happened. But a Dr left in charge of checking on a kid, who didn't do it right has no reason to lie at all, considering he could have been completely inept?
It could well have been someone else, but it could just as easily have been the parents.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
She's with the Daleks.
What was their motive?
A family friend (Dr Oldfield) checked on her and confirmed that Madeleine was alive and well. This was 25 minutes after her father had checked on her, and at least half an hour before she was discovered missing.
I don't buy the "causal check" and "bed full of pillows" explanation.
It could not "just as easily have been the parents", since they were in full public view for most of the evening, enjoying dinner with friends at a tappas restaurant. And the "killed her miles away then pretended that she was still alive" thing assumes that Madeleine was not seen alive before the dinner at the restaurant. Which we know to be false.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Stop letting facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
What crap, you have no clue they've been seen before the dinner. Why would the Dr if a kid is all tucked up in bed specifically pull back the covers, risking waking the kid up when he simply thinks all is safe and well and has no reason at all to suspect it might not be a child in the bed. Or for all we know, he wants the money too.
AS for motive, I don't know the case well enough, they didn't like the kid, they thought they could get money, or, like i said it was an accident and got scared. You can't catagorically say anyone knows she was alive before they went to dinner, because the only way to be 100% sure, is to know where she is now and exactly what happened to her, since I assume you won't claim that you can not under any circumstances assume anything is completely true at this point.
Any point you'd like to make regarding the supposed over an hour gap between when the mother says she called the police, and when the police say they were called?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562817/Madeleine-McCann-Confusion-over-last-hours.html
thats the first link thats pulled up when looking for the Dr on google, nothing in that confirms as remotely fact that the Dr saw Maddie, infact his first report says he listened at the door, changed the story and still doesn't confirm he saw her. The woman who supposedly saw the kidnapper was not seen by someone who said he couldn't possibly have missed her and she was another from the group of friends.
Meh, i bet the kid died by accident somewhere when all in a group, maybe one of the other families kids accidentally pushed her in a pool or running around playing tripped her up and she hit her head and died and its a group conspiricy
basically there are a billion possibilities, the story doesn't add up in any way that is 100% reliable, the Dr probably didn't really check but doesn't want to appear at fault, the mother seems to have "lost" over 90 minutes between finding the kid, and someone calling the cops which no one else seems to have noticed. Someone happens to see who they thought was the kidnapper, while no one else saw them.
I'm sorry but theres no "fact" or proven knowledge here, everything is hearsay, everything. YOu can't blindly believe one tiny section of the story for the sake of it. If you were the Dr and told me you went in and checked under the covers, then I'd say ok, but afaik even the Dr himself didn't claim he checked under the covers.
EDIT;- the more sources I checked not a single one claims the Dr has ever said he actually saw the kid, not a single one, so he didn't, so there isn't the slighest lick of proof she was ever in that room that night, not the slightest.
Everything seems to point to the fact that no one saw the kid from 6pm again, no one except the Mccanns and a possible kidnapper, how that rules the Mccanns out I don't know.
Last edited:
Yes I do.
The "pillow in the bed" thing is total nonsense. Nobody in their right mind would resort to such a weak attempt at deception, because it could so easily be discovered by someone looking more closely at the bed, which could have happened at any time during the evening.
In order to make this plausible, you have to expand the circle of culprits - as you have just been forced to do - which again begs the question of motive. Can't you see how ridiculous this sounds?
"They thought they could get money". How, exactly? And why choose the larger child, who would be the hardest to get rid of?
Nope. Why should I? Are you suggesting that there's something sinister about this?
You're right, he didn't see her. However, others did:
This is how the group recalled the evening:
* 1730: Kate and Gerry McCann pick up their three children from afternoon tea at the Ocean Club
* 1800: Gerry begins a game of tennis with other guests
* 1840: David Payne checks on Kate and the children, at Gerry's request and sees Madeleine
* 1900: Gerry finishes playing tennis
* 2035: Kate and Gerry McCann arrive at the Ocean Club's tapas restaurant
* 2105: Gerry checks on his children, and sees Madeleine alive and well
* 2115: Having left the table to check on her own children, Jane Tanner sees a man carrying a child, close to the McCanns' apartment
* 2130: Matthew Oldfield checks on the McCanns' apartment. Hearing no noise from the children's bedroom, he assumes all is well and leaves without seeing Madeleine
* 2200: Kate McCann checks on her children. Madeleine is gone.
Source.
What do you mean she was "not seen by someone who said he couldn't possibly have missed her"? She didn't check on Madeleine; she checked on her own kids.
And I don't believe anyone saw the kidnapper (presuming that there was one). It's entirely plausible that Madeleine wandered off by herself. The apartment door was unlocked, after all.
Meh, i bet the kid died by accident somewhere when all in a group, maybe one of the other families kids accidentally pushed her in a pool or running around playing tripped her up and she hit her head and died and its a group conspiricy
There are plenty of proven facts. It's just that none of them add up to a conclusive resolution.
I am not believing one tiny section of the story for the sake of it. In fact, I now accept that he didn't see her. However, this does not prove she was not there. And other people had seen her after 18:30.
Wow, your leap of logic astounds me.
If the last time she was seen alive was at 18:00 when the family was heading for their apartment (which it wasn't; she was seen safe in bed at 18:40 by a family friend), then it seems pretty daft to claim that she was never in the apartment that evening.
That would require the McCans to kill her before even reaching the apartment, while they were still on the grounds of the resort and in full public view.
I spoke with Kate McCann last week. Genuinely nice person who loves her children with all of her heart.
Reading some of the comments her frankly just makes me laugh at how totally and utterly pathetic/ignorant/childish/insensitive & paranoid some people are.
Posting ***** on the internet....It's better than real life eh?
****heads!
Reading some of the comments her frankly just makes me laugh at how totally and utterly pathetic/ignorant/childish/insensitive & paranoid some people are.
Posting ***** on the internet....It's better than real life eh?
****heads!
Obviously, because she looks after them SO well(!)
...
Dot dot dot
Let's be honest, every parent loves their kids with everything they've got.
This whole saga bores me because they've played on it so much within the media. All the time it's "new pictures of madeleine", bla bla bla.
I may come across as being quite cynical here, and I really do feel sorry that they've lost one of their kids, but it's old news.
Who can blame them for not giving up though. If it's such old news and boring to you stop bumping the thread back to the top by replying to it.
Reading some of the comments her frankly just makes me laugh at how totally and utterly pathetic/ignorant/childish/insensitive & paranoid some people are.
Posting ***** on the internet....It's better than real life eh?
****heads!
What comments have upset you, the ones about them being bad parents for leaving 3 children, aged 3 and under alone, unsupervised, out of sight, in a foreign country while they went out on the lash with there friends?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Well, from what I've seen I've not seen anything say the 6.40 seeing in her room, supposedly there was confusion over the time and at first they thought she'd been seen at around 7pm but it turned out to be 6pm, most things say only the Mccanns saw her after 6pm. Theres no leap of logic, you are very deliberately trying to misrepresent my quotes.
The way you posted makes it sound like I was claiming she was definately never there and thus proved because no one saw her trying to make my claim sound outlandish. However I never said that.
What I said that you quoted
"Everything seems to point to the fact that no one saw the kid from 6pm again, no one except the Mccanns and a possible kidnapper, how that rules the Mccanns out I don't know."
What you said in response to what I said
"If the last time she was seen alive was at 18:00 when the family was heading for their apartment (which it wasn't; she was seen safe in bed at 18:40 by a family friend), then it seems pretty daft to claim that she was never in the apartment that evening."
Sorry but all i said was the fact that no one saw her after 6pm, or maybe even 6.40 if the friend thing is accurate in seeing her at 6.40pm. If no one saw the kid from much earlier than I claimed i couldn't see how that possibly ruled the Mccanns out, and it doesn't. You keep going on like, but you're wrong people did see her again, yes, supposedly except those people, were the Mccanns. If the Mccanns did do it, which is certainly a possibility, they Gerry MCCANN saying she was fine at 9.05 doesn't really mean crap if he's lying. If the possibility exists that a kidnapper snuck in and took the kid away, then its also possible they snuck out with the kid came back and went to dinner.
His story has also changed, i thought that maybe it was weird that the door was open when I went to check on them, the door is open, but he's not worried, goes to talk to someone about tennis then back to dinner. Other times he doesn't mention the door was open at all. The Doctor sometimes says, and initially said that he only listened at the door, he then changed his mind and says he checked the room because it was "brighter than the others" and mentions the big shutter was ajar but still didn't actually go and check the kid was in the bed. Then later on, someone was seen around the area, inside, where the doors are unlocked, why would the shutter be open if you break in through the unlocked door.
A friend who went up to check on her kids, not the Mccanns, says she saw a guy walking off with a kid in a blanket, but she didn't think anything of it. However the guy Gerry was talking to about tennis seems to think the path between where he saw her, and didn't see the guy, was very narrow and it would have been utterly impossible for this woman to see this "suspect with a child" and he couldn't in the same path as its tiny.
Nothing adds up, at all, nothing is provable, you can't just assume the parents didn't do it, in which case you can't 100% certainly claim what they said is true or accurate. They specifically didn't use the babysitting service, so they weren't hoping anyone saw the kid, they didn't ask the doctor to check on his kids(and it sounds very much like he didn't even go in) the doctor offered. If anyone found a pillow under the covers, theres nothing provable there anyway, they could simply claim the kidnapper did it to try to increase the time before the kid was discovered as missing.
SO far there is one, single proven fact to start off from, everything after is hearsay and told by possible suspects. Everyone saw the kid around the area they were eating before they went back to the room around 6ish, thats the last time she was definately seen. I haven't spotted anything yet confirming the 6.40pm visit but lets assume that was true, everything after that is hearsay, claiming as fact that the kid was fine at 9.05 or 9.30 is impossible.
But i love your reasoning, clearly they couldn't have done it, it makes more sense to kill one of the smaller kids than the big one, no really thats just a sentence chock full of logic there.
The way you posted makes it sound like I was claiming she was definately never there and thus proved because no one saw her trying to make my claim sound outlandish. However I never said that.
What I said that you quoted
"Everything seems to point to the fact that no one saw the kid from 6pm again, no one except the Mccanns and a possible kidnapper, how that rules the Mccanns out I don't know."
What you said in response to what I said
"If the last time she was seen alive was at 18:00 when the family was heading for their apartment (which it wasn't; she was seen safe in bed at 18:40 by a family friend), then it seems pretty daft to claim that she was never in the apartment that evening."
Sorry but all i said was the fact that no one saw her after 6pm, or maybe even 6.40 if the friend thing is accurate in seeing her at 6.40pm. If no one saw the kid from much earlier than I claimed i couldn't see how that possibly ruled the Mccanns out, and it doesn't. You keep going on like, but you're wrong people did see her again, yes, supposedly except those people, were the Mccanns. If the Mccanns did do it, which is certainly a possibility, they Gerry MCCANN saying she was fine at 9.05 doesn't really mean crap if he's lying. If the possibility exists that a kidnapper snuck in and took the kid away, then its also possible they snuck out with the kid came back and went to dinner.
His story has also changed, i thought that maybe it was weird that the door was open when I went to check on them, the door is open, but he's not worried, goes to talk to someone about tennis then back to dinner. Other times he doesn't mention the door was open at all. The Doctor sometimes says, and initially said that he only listened at the door, he then changed his mind and says he checked the room because it was "brighter than the others" and mentions the big shutter was ajar but still didn't actually go and check the kid was in the bed. Then later on, someone was seen around the area, inside, where the doors are unlocked, why would the shutter be open if you break in through the unlocked door.
A friend who went up to check on her kids, not the Mccanns, says she saw a guy walking off with a kid in a blanket, but she didn't think anything of it. However the guy Gerry was talking to about tennis seems to think the path between where he saw her, and didn't see the guy, was very narrow and it would have been utterly impossible for this woman to see this "suspect with a child" and he couldn't in the same path as its tiny.
Nothing adds up, at all, nothing is provable, you can't just assume the parents didn't do it, in which case you can't 100% certainly claim what they said is true or accurate. They specifically didn't use the babysitting service, so they weren't hoping anyone saw the kid, they didn't ask the doctor to check on his kids(and it sounds very much like he didn't even go in) the doctor offered. If anyone found a pillow under the covers, theres nothing provable there anyway, they could simply claim the kidnapper did it to try to increase the time before the kid was discovered as missing.
SO far there is one, single proven fact to start off from, everything after is hearsay and told by possible suspects. Everyone saw the kid around the area they were eating before they went back to the room around 6ish, thats the last time she was definately seen. I haven't spotted anything yet confirming the 6.40pm visit but lets assume that was true, everything after that is hearsay, claiming as fact that the kid was fine at 9.05 or 9.30 is impossible.
But i love your reasoning, clearly they couldn't have done it, it makes more sense to kill one of the smaller kids than the big one, no really thats just a sentence chock full of logic there.
Last edited:
But think about it - people must do this ALL the time.. why not go start a vigilante to hunt down all these bad parents if everyone on here's so "upset" about it and feel so strongly about it that they have to go on the internet and discuss it with equally "upset" strangers :|
It has no relevance to anyone here at all.. don't see why people are taking such a personal interest in it..