Madeleine McCann

[Darryl Kenyon]

The McCanns and all their friends on the holiday left their patio doors open throughout the evenings for fear of fire.
I read this in an old newspaper report. Does anyone know for certain if this is the reason why the patio doors where unlocked and is it for certain that the rest of the tapas 7 followed suit.
It just seems a strange thing to me. If you are worried about a fire why not take the children to the restaurant with you, and would you not be more worried about a child abductor and lock the doors? Plus if there was a fire could they not see the smoke from where they where sat. The Mcanns insist on, that they could see the apartment from where they where sat, plus did the rooms not come with smoke alarms and would the twins be able to get out of their cots and through the front doors if there was a fire anyway?
If the patio doors where left unlocked on all the apartments why did not one person go and check on all the children each time instead of the parents of each child getting constantly up and down. I know the Mcann children where checked on at 9 30 by Oldfield but what about all the other times IE Gerry Mcann checking on the other adults children at 9 for instance. Did any of this happen?

[JeffHamm]

Of course. But possible evidence is better than no evidence. Ie the dogs didnt alert at all.

If one's goal is to convict someone regardless of guilt or innocence, then sure. However, if one is concerned that convicting the innocent is a bad thing in and of itself, and also concerned that means the real offender gets away with it, and that if Maddie is still alive it means nobody will be looking out for her, well, sure. Go for it. Personally, I disagree with all of the implications of taking that view.

And the dog's didn't alert until after several promptings to return and "check again". False positives are probably worse errors than if the dog's missed a signal, because false alarms actively divert an investigation away from the solution, while a missed signal is just a lost opportunity to get onto a solid line of evidence.

That being said the rental car being used many days after her “disapearance” is problematic for me and im not sure if relevant. I doubt they hid the body for so long then used the rental car much later to move the body but its possible. To me the most likely scenario is she died some time before the fateful dinner and jerry carried to her tje ocean and threw her in. The alert on the car may have been from transference where some rag or something used to clean up the scene or maybe an article of maddys clothes was thrown out using the car later.

The alert on the car required multiple redirections of the dog to the car. To call that an "alert" is incorrect, it's how false positive occur.

this all being said they did alert on the couch in the apartment which as far as i know was there at the time and in possible contact with maddy amd the mccans at the time of her disapearance.

Again, it required multiple redirections to return to the couch to get an alert. And following that, with both the car and the all of the locations in the apartment, nothing was found to coroborate the alert as being anything other than a false positive. The "alerting" is not evidence of anything if it is not backed up by actual evidence. False alerts are not uncommon, that is why by themselves they mean nothing and if they are not backed up, they are just another example of a false positive.

but never mind me, you and sunny go right on ahead defending a couple of self centered criminally negligent child abusing losers.

I'm curious to know how my post focused on the validity of the dog alerting has led you to conclude anything about what my opinion is on other matters concerning the case? Also, whether or not you approve of their parenting style has nothing to do with whether or not they killed Maddie. You're concerned about the "why didn't you come in when we cried" reflects a belief that parents should go into the room everytime a child cries at night. Not all parents hold to that, and some believe that it is better to let them "cry it out" and learn to self settle. You might not like that approach, but it's not child abuse either.

While I personally would not have left such young children in a holiday room alone, I also can see how a group of parents, who set up a routine of regularly checking on the children, could see that as being acceptable, given they were able to see the buildings (they might not have had as clear a view as they thought, but their evaluation of the view before anything happened would have been made without the benefit of hindsight). Again, people on holiday make more relaxed decisions. And remember, the McCann's were not doing anything different than any of the other families at that table - all of them had left their children alone, apparently sleeping, in their rooms. You don't have to like that choice, you can fault them for it, but it is not an unusual choice for them or their friends and in that light, it's not suspicious.

Tossing around pejorative descriptions of their choices, which were no different from anyone else at that table, does not constitute evidence of their guilt or involvement in Maddie's disappearance. Rather, it emotionally inflames the presentation, which does exactly the same thing as redirecting the dogs back to the same location over and over, it greatly increases the probability of a false positive.

And if one is interested in justice for Maddie and determining who is responsible for her disappearance and what happened to her, then one should be just as concerned about false positives as they are misses. You don't have to like their parenting choices, and you don't have to like how they appear on TV. But regardless of that, none of those opinions matter when it comes to whether or not they are guilty of being involved.

None of the scenarios you've mentioned have any supporting evidence, and some are actually refuted by the existing evidence (as in her being killed the day before, etc). The dog alerts may support your emotional response towards them, but sometimes people you don't like are, in fact, not guilty of the crime; and sometimes people you like are; and sometimes people you don't like are guilty, and all combinations.

I don't know who is responsible. I know the McCann's have been investigated thoroughly and nothing whatsoever has come up to implicate them in any way. I know there was a sexual predator operating in that area at the time. I know that the lead Portuguese police officer had failed to find a previous missing child, and pushed her mother and uncle to plead guilty to dismembering her and putting her in a freezer (sound familiar), which when investigated, was a physical impossibility and he was under investigation for that (coercion of a false confession or something like that).

In otherwords, there are lots of pointers suggesting Maddie was abducted by a stranger but the investigation focused on the parents (yes, always top of the list in cases like this) once they didn't get an immediate lead on the abductor. The failure to run parallel investigations meant, for a number of years, nobody was looking for Maddie and all the focus was on the parents, who have since been cleared by all of the police forces investigating this case.

If you want to vent at an injustice, then that is where you should direct it, in my opinion at least.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

If one's goal is to convict someone regardless of guilt or innocence, then sure. However, if one is concerned that convicting the innocent is a bad thing in and of itself, and also concerned that means the real offender gets away with it, and that if Maddie is still alive it means nobody will be looking out for her, well, sure. Go for it. Personally, I disagree with all of the implications of taking that view.

And the dog's didn't alert until after several promptings to return and "check again". False positives are probably worse errors than if the dog's missed a signal, because false alarms actively divert an investigation away from the solution, while a missed signal is just a lost opportunity to get onto a solid line of evidence.


The alert on the car required multiple redirections of the dog to the car. To call that an "alert" is incorrect, it's how false positive occur.

Again, it required multiple redirections to return to the couch to get an alert. And following that, with both the car and the all of the locations in the apartment, nothing was found to coroborate the alert as being anything other than a false positive. The "alerting" is not evidence of anything if it is not backed up by actual evidence. False alerts are not uncommon, that is why by themselves they mean nothing and if they are not backed up, they are just another example of a false positive.

I'm curious to know how my post focused on the validity of the dog alerting has led you to conclude anything about what my opinion is on other matters concerning the case? Also, whether or not you approve of their parenting style has nothing to do with whether or not they killed Maddie. You're concerned about the "why didn't you come in when we cried" reflects a belief that parents should go into the room everytime a child cries at night. Not all parents hold to that, and some believe that it is better to let them "cry it out" and learn to self settle. You might not like that approach, but it's not child abuse either.

While I personally would not have left such young children in a holiday room alone, I also can see how a group of parents, who set up a routine of regularly checking on the children, could see that as being acceptable, given they were able to see the buildings (they might not have had as clear a view as they thought, but their evaluation of the view before anything happened would have been made without the benefit of hindsight). Again, people on holiday make more relaxed decisions. And remember, the McCann's were not doing anything different than any of the other families at that table - all of them had left their children alone, apparently sleeping, in their rooms. You don't have to like that choice, you can fault them for it, but it is not an unusual choice for them or their friends and in that light, it's not suspicious.

Tossing around pejorative descriptions of their choices, which were no different from anyone else at that table, does not constitute evidence of their guilt or involvement in Maddie's disappearance. Rather, it emotionally inflames the presentation, which does exactly the same thing as redirecting the dogs back to the same location over and over, it greatly increases the probability of a false positive.

And if one is interested in justice for Maddie and determining who is responsible for her disappearance and what happened to her, then one should be just as concerned about false positives as they are misses. You don't have to like their parenting choices, and you don't have to like how they appear on TV. But regardless of that, none of those opinions matter when it comes to whether or not they are guilty of being involved.

None of the scenarios you've mentioned have any supporting evidence, and some are actually refuted by the existing evidence (as in her being killed the day before, etc). The dog alerts may support your emotional response towards them, but sometimes people you don't like are, in fact, not guilty of the crime; and sometimes people you like are; and sometimes people you don't like are guilty, and all combinations.

I don't know who is responsible. I know the McCann's have been investigated thoroughly and nothing whatsoever has come up to implicate them in any way. I know there was a sexual predator operating in that area at the time. I know that the lead Portuguese police officer had failed to find a previous missing child, and pushed her mother and uncle to plead guilty to dismembering her and putting her in a freezer (sound familiar), which when investigated, was a physical impossibility and he was under investigation for that (coercion of a false confession or something like that).

In otherwords, there are lots of pointers suggesting Maddie was abducted by a stranger but the investigation focused on the parents (yes, always top of the list in cases like this) once they didn't get an immediate lead on the abductor. The failure to run parallel investigations meant, for a number of years, nobody was looking for Maddie and all the focus was on the parents, who have since been cleared by all of the police forces investigating this case.

If you want to vent at an injustice, then that is where you should direct it, in my opinion at least.

- Jeff

Parenting style? Parenting effing STYLE?!? Did you reaaly just flippantly try and equate child neglect and abuse to a parentling style?
one which directly led to their daughters death or disapearance?!!
well you and sunny, to use your own words. Go for it. Ill have nothing more to do with your nonsense.

oh and by the way as much as you want to wish it away. FACT-Two dogs alerted on death and blood, corroberated by finding maddies dna.
but please do keep babbling about false positives, which might want to read up on yourself, because anyone witha modicum of knowledge knows false positives are extremely rare. The onus are on the mccann enablers to disprove the dna, blood and death alerts.
this is direct evidence of mccans guilt, unlike zero evidence of a bogeyman.

more evidence- eyewitness. The smith sighting said the man carrying the girl looked like gerry.
zero evidence of a bogeyman
More evidence-the mccans lied, about the doors beimg locked. Zero evidence of a bogeyman.
more evidence- the mccans staged the open window, the only fingerprints on the window were kates. No evidence of a bogeyman.

so theres your “none of your... has supporting evidence” statement out the door. There alot of supporting evidence.

oh and by the way, did you know that child abductions from the home are extremely rare. 90percent of the time its the parents or family member.
not the bogeyman.


you and sunny really need to study up a little more on this case before you come on here and make false and erroneous statements, like her recent assertion that the tanner sighting had anything to do with the case. Ill give you and her a hint. It didnt. The man came forward and admitted he was picking up his daughter. It had NOTHING to do with the case. Unless of course your hell bent on exonerating the mcanns and put blame on the bogeyman.

another false statement by you-“they have been cleared by all police forces investigating”. This is patent bullshit the police on the ground in portugal, you know the ones actually inbestigating the case, didnt clear them! On the contrary they suspect them.

and whats this crap about “”failure to run parralel investigations”” blah blah blah, of course they did. Two words. George murat.

its one thing if you dont think the mccanns killed there daughter, thats one thing, im not 100 percent convinced they killed her either. But they are guilty of child neglect and abuse that either led directly to her anduction and or death and if you cant see that, then i feel sorry for you and you should stick to your pseudo science geoprofiling efforts, because dealing with anything on the Human side is a bit over your head.

Or if you feel so strongly about the poor mccans, maybe you and sunny can pool some of your money and send to the kate mcann wine of the month club fund.

Im done with this crap.

[JeffHamm]

Parenting style? Parenting effing STYLE?!? Did you reaaly just flippantly try and equate child neglect and abuse to a parentling style?
one which directly led to their daughters death or disapearance?!!
well you and sunny, to use your own words. Go for it. Ill have nothing more to do with your nonsense.

oh and by the way as much as you want to wish it away. FACT-Two dogs alerted on death and blood, corroberated by finding maddies dna.
but please do keep babbling about false positives, which might want to read up on yourself, because anyone witha modicum of knowledge knows false positives are extremely rare. The onus are on the mccann enablers to disprove the dna, blood and death alerts.
this is direct evidence of mccans guilt, unlike zero evidence of a bogeyman.

more evidence- eyewitness. The smith sighting said the man carrying the girl looked like gerry.
zero evidence of a bogeyman
More evidence-the mccans lied, about the doors beimg locked. Zero evidence of a bogeyman.
more evidence- the mccans staged the open window, the only fingerprints on the window were kates. No evidence of a bogeyman.

so theres your “none of your... has supporting evidence” statement out the door. There alot of supporting evidence.

oh and by the way, did you know that child abductions from the home are extremely rare. 90percent of the time its the parents or family member.
not the bogeyman.


you and sunny really need to study up a little more on this case before you come on here and make false and erroneous statements, like her recent assertion that the tanner sighting had anything to do with the case. Ill give you and her a hint. It didnt. The man came forward and admitted he was picking up his daughter. It had NOTHING to do with the case. Unless of course your hell bent on exonerating the mcanns and put blame on the bogeyman.

another false statement by you-“they have been cleared by all police forces investigating”. This is patent bullshit the police on the ground in portugal, you know the ones actually inbestigating the case, didnt clear them! On the contrary they suspect them.

and whats this crap about “”failure to run parralel investigations”” blah blah blah, of course they did. Two words. George murat.

its one thing if you dont think the mccanns killed there daughter, thats one thing, im not 100 percent convinced they killed her either. But they are guilty of child neglect and abuse that either led directly to her anduction and or death and if you cant see that, then i feel sorry for you and you should stick to your pseudo science geoprofiling efforts, because dealing with anything on the Human side is a bit over your head.

Or if you feel so strongly about the poor mccans, maybe you and sunny can pool some of your money and send to the kate mcann wine of the month club fund.

Im done with this crap.

1) letting your child cry it out is not abuse, or neglect, no matter how many times you repeat it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it abuse, it does, however, represent a parenting style. So freak out all you want over my calling it that, but it's not abuse however much you choose to shout those emotionally charged, and inaccurate, descriptions.
2) going to an outdoor restaurant, within visible sight of the unit, with plans for regular check ins on the children is not abuse, or neglect, no matter how many times you repeat that it is (I'm not saying it's the best option, but it's not abuse)
3) leaving their children did not lead to Maddie's abduction - someone breaking into the unit and taking her did - you are blaming the parents for someone else's actions, you are blaming tge parents for the choice of the offender, and that is misplaced in my view.
4) false alerts are not uncommon no matter how magical you think the dogs are, and they occur more frequently when the dogs are redirected back to repeatedly check the same spots (as in this case). You might think the dog alerts mean something, but that doesn't make it so.
5) Maddie's DNA was not found in the rental car, only a mix of other family members. Finding her DNA in the apartment would be unsurprising as she was known to have been there because she was on holiday there.
6) The police in Portugal dropped the case against them because they had nothing at all to make a case out of - they were investigated and nothing against them was found - put in simple terms, the investigation cleared them. The head of the investigation who "suspected them" was also under investigation for coercising another family into confessing to murdering their missing child, and had them confess to a similar story (murdered the child, hid them in a freezer - exact some story he used to explain how the McCann's were supposed to have hidden Maddie in a freezer, etc).
6) They looked at Geoge Murat, over and over, never found anything on him either, and looked no further. Child abductions in Portugal are rare, the experience isn't there for such complicated cases when (and they do) occur. This appears to be one of them.
7) Finger prints of soemone staying in the Apartment being on the window is not evidence they staged the crime unless those prints are in blood, or something incriminating. Lack of fingerprints can happen even if someone isn't wearing gloves - they aren't always found (but yes, when found they are great evidence). You're making huge assumptions on exceptionally weak and risky evidence.
8) you're vitriol towards the McCann's is unhealthy, and clouds your judgement, but there is nothing to indicate they are abusive towards their children. They made some choices I wouldn't, but not choices other peopel wouldn't make (i.e. every other family at the table with them that night - you must hate them all and want all of them in jail for abuse and neglect since every family there did the same thing and left their kids unattended and asleep in the holiday room in the building they could see and regularly checked on - look, I agree, even with that system I wouldn't be comfortable leaving kids as young as 3 and under alone in the room, but looking at the fact they had arranged regular check ups on the kids, something like eveyr 20 minutes, that to me sounds more of someone trying to both enjoy a holiday and make sure the kdis are safe. You blame them for what appears to be someone abducting them, and that is just wrong. If she was abducted, and to me things point in that direction more than it does to the McCann's, the blame is solely that of the one who chose to abduct her in the first place.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, I should also have mentioned with regards to investigations that cleared them. The McCanns' won law suits against the press for widely misrepresenting them and the evidence against them. They also won a legal case, in Portugal, against the former lead police officer who wrote a book based upon his "put her in a freezer" theory, and had that book blocked from further publication because it was found to be factually inaccurate and entirely unsupported. These are legal cases, legal investigations, and they won them, which is by definition clearing them and putting the fault for misrepresenting them on the press and the former lead police officer (who was also under investigation for using the same basic story to coerce a false confession from another family under similar circumstances).

And no matter how much you yourself dissapprove of letting a child cry it out at night, that does not constitute abuse, but it is correctly described as a style of parenting. I've neither said it was one I approve of or disapprove of because my opinion of that is irrelevant, what is important that it is recognized for what it is, a style of parenting that is within the acceptable range of options that people have to choose from. You don't like it, don't choose it, but it's not abuse, nor is it neglect.

And again, I would not have chosen to leave such young kids alone, but given that's not because of a fear of abduction, or fire, or other unforeseeable events, but because of things like children wetting the bed, or waking up and needing to be attended to, or getting up and wandering about and possibly hurting themselves. However, they and the others had made, what they felt to be adequate arrangements to check on the kids. Again, you may disagree with that choice, but clearly none of the families at that table did. It was considered an acceptable solution, and it does not qualify as neglect.

Strip away the prejudicial language, and one is just left with parenting style, and what was deemed at the time an adequate arrangement to check on the children. I'm not defending their choice, nor saying I agree with them (in fact, I've said a few times I wouldn't make the same choice), but I am arguing that to describe those two things as evidence of abuse and neglect show a lack of understanding of what abuse and neglect look like.

Also, their lack of emotion on TV is because they were instructed by the police to not show any emotion. Deciding they are the scum of the earth based upon their TV characters is confusing real life and real people for characters in a TV show. People respond to tragedies in very different ways, and not everybody becomes a wailing character to be oggled and paraded before the public as some form of visceral entertainment. They might not have satisfied your expectations of what you think they should have done, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not there is any evidence, real evidence, not emotional hoopla created by hyperbolic descriptions of choices we ourselves might not have made. And nothing has turned up to implicate them. There's no DNA, no blood, no evidence of vomit (overdoses often lead to vomiting, but I don't know if the drug they are supposed to have used would be such a one, but regardless there's no signs she asperated due to distress from an overdose), and so on. No body. And they are not considered suspects by the Portugese police, except by the one officer who lost his job as a result and who was also found to have mishandled other cases of a similar nature.

I'm not defending the McCann's because I like them, I don't know them. I don't believe the representation in the press accurately reflects anybody, in this case, or in entertainment, or politics, or anything. Press presents news that will sell papers, and that is enhanced by turning real people into heroes or villains, whether they suit that role in reality or not. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and far more boring.

Yes, parents are always the prime suspects, and sadly, in the majority of cases that is where the evidence points as well. But when it doesn't, less common explanations start becoming more probable. And in this case, it is looking more like a stranger abduction. In all probability, she was killed within the first 24 hours, and is probably buried in a backyard, or in the hills, somewhere nearby, either in the same town, or within a relatively short distance (I don't know, maybe 40 km radius to pick a number). I doubt she was thrown in the ocean, only because bodies or parts, tend to wash ashore eventually and as far as I know nothing has ever been found that might be her. I could be wrong, of course. Someone may have taken her out on a boat and dumped her in the deep, or in some area with a strong current. I just can't see how the McCann's could have had time to do any of that.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Remember when Kate McCann said in her book that she had imagined someone tearing up Madeline's "perfect genitals"?

Not saying this points to guilt, perhaps her mind had cracked under the pressure, but either way a f'ed up thing to say!!

[Sunny Delight]

Remember when Kate McCann said in her book that she had imagined someone tearing up Madeline's "perfect genitals"?

Not saying this points to guilt, perhaps her mind had cracked under the pressure, but either way a f'ed up thing to say!!

She was having disturbing thoughts and dreams. Taken in context she says in the book these thoughts were overwhelming her and she confided eventually in her husband. Obviously some sort of PTSD that needed professional help and probably therapy. It goes to show how the mind can crack.

[Sunny Delight]

Parenting style? Parenting effing STYLE?!? Did you reaaly just flippantly try and equate child neglect and abuse to a parentling style?
one which directly led to their daughters death or disapearance?!!
well you and sunny, to use your own words. Go for it. Ill have nothing more to do with your nonsense.

oh and by the way as much as you want to wish it away. FACT-Two dogs alerted on death and blood, corroberated by finding maddies dna.
but please do keep babbling about false positives, which might want to read up on yourself, because anyone witha modicum of knowledge knows false positives are extremely rare. The onus are on the mccann enablers to disprove the dna, blood and death alerts.
this is direct evidence of mccans guilt, unlike zero evidence of a bogeyman.

more evidence- eyewitness. The smith sighting said the man carrying the girl looked like gerry.
zero evidence of a bogeyman
More evidence-the mccans lied, about the doors beimg locked. Zero evidence of a bogeyman.
more evidence- the mccans staged the open window, the only fingerprints on the window were kates. No evidence of a bogeyman.

so theres your “none of your... has supporting evidence” statement out the door. There alot of supporting evidence.

oh and by the way, did you know that child abductions from the home are extremely rare. 90percent of the time its the parents or family member.
not the bogeyman.


you and sunny really need to study up a little more on this case before you come on here and make false and erroneous statements, like her recent assertion that the tanner sighting had anything to do with the case. Ill give you and her a hint. It didnt. The man came forward and admitted he was picking up his daughter. It had NOTHING to do with the case. Unless of course your hell bent on exonerating the mcanns and put blame on the bogeyman.

another false statement by you-“they have been cleared by all police forces investigating”. This is patent bullshit the police on the ground in portugal, you know the ones actually inbestigating the case, didnt clear them! On the contrary they suspect them.

and whats this crap about “”failure to run parralel investigations”” blah blah blah, of course they did. Two words. George murat.

its one thing if you dont think the mccanns killed there daughter, thats one thing, im not 100 percent convinced they killed her either. But they are guilty of child neglect and abuse that either led directly to her anduction and or death and if you cant see that, then i feel sorry for you and you should stick to your pseudo science geoprofiling efforts, because dealing with anything on the Human side is a bit over your head.

Or if you feel so strongly about the poor mccans, maybe you and sunny can pool some of your money and send to the kate mcann wine of the month club fund.

Im done with this crap.

1) Smith was mistaken. It could not have been Gerry he saw as independent witnesses verified Gerry was in the Tapas at the time Smith thought(60-80%) he saw him. FACT.

2) Kate had been in the apartment for almost a week- hardly suprising her fingerprint was on the window. Are you seriously suggesting a perpetrator could not have worn gloves????

3) The dogs are NOT standalone evidence despite your remonstrations that they are. They offer lines of enquiry to maybe be pursued. It is not an exact science. If a line if enquiry is pursued and nothing untoward found then the dogs were either mistaken or there was another explaination.

4) When did I state that the man Jane Tanner saw was a suspect? In fact actually I said he had come forward and that sighting is now seen as a red herring.

5) Interesting that you believe in the bogeyman George Hutchinson lurking outside Mary Kelly's as extremely suspicious but someone lurking outside the McCanns or someone disturbed whilst engaged in some sort of creepy behaviour- not suspicious at all.

6) Answer this question you are studiously avoiding and hopefully without hyperbole- where did the McCanns hide the body that night before moving it the next day? There were 60 or so people involved in trying to find Madeleine the night she disappeared and most including the GNR continued searching until around 5 or 6am. They conducted extensive searches. The PJ arrived at 2am and were engaged in tracking movements. The apartment was searched thoroughly. So where did they hide the body that night?

[Abby Normal]

Remember when Kate McCann said in her book that she had imagined someone tearing up Madeline's "perfect genitals"?

Not saying this points to guilt, perhaps her mind had cracked under the pressure, but either way a f'ed up thing to say!!

Hi Harry

to me it points to being a pedophile.

Also, Henry Flower made a very prescient point about it a while back. I quote him in full.

Sir, no act of imagination is necessary. I've studied a lot of similar cases, I've read books by two other parents of abducted and murdered children. I'm sure the mind of a parent in that situation would indeed be flooded with nightmarish images, but most of them you would try to suppress to avoid going insane with pain and grief.

To the best of my knowledge, only one parent of a supposedly missing child has written such a vile and graphically explicit sentence about their child's sexual abuse, and that parent is Kate. I suspect there is a simple explanation: she has imagined what the parent of an abducted girl would be going through, what types of thoughts they would have; but she has not had the wit or the sense to realize that they don't write it down, they don't allow it casually to the surface, they don't give it form because it is to them

literally unspeakable

. There is a reason why it is not unspeakable for Kate, there is a reason why she is able to write coolly about imagining Madeleine's genitals being torn: she knows that it did not happen, and never can happen. Madeleine is not missing, was never abducted by a pedophile. She is beyond harm, and these words are only words.

this would also explain there psychopathic non emotional interviews-they know shes dead. its over, they know it-theyve moved on.

some other similar points about there interviews:

Very little if any expression of guilt over leaving her unattended.
no concern for her current welfare
selfish portrayal of themselves-constantly talking about themselves
speaking of Maddie constantly in the past tense
extreme defensiveness
constant use of "we" (this is classic guilty behavior-distances individual responsibility, use of royal we to express some kind of vague group defense).
ridiculous use of what the experts call story building-excessive use of useless details. who gives a rats if the window went woosh or where you sat exactly at the dinner table. even I saw how bizarre this was.
constantly blaming others.

the linguistic analyst that someone posted his clip a while back was all over this stuff.

and two clinchers they knew she was dead: kate leaving the twins still in there, with the possible abductor still about, and the twins in possible danger also, to go run back into the restuarant. no way.

them both leaving Portugal with the investigation ongoing, and still possible hope of finding her. no way. not in a million years would both parents leave, unless they knew.

add to that there refusal to cooperate with police, indeed lying to them about locked doors and other things, lawyering up yet at the same time starting a PR campaign to promote their innocence and give interviews. reminds me of the ramseys.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Harry

to me it points to being a pedophile.

Also, Henry Flower made a very prescient point about it a while back. I quote him in full.



this would also explain there psychopathic non emotional interviews-they know shes dead. its over, they know it-theyve moved on.

some other similar points about there interviews:

Very little if any expression of guilt over leaving her unattended.
no concern for her current welfare
selfish portrayal of themselves-constantly talking about themselves
speaking of Maddie constantly in the past tense
extreme defensiveness
constant use of "we" (this is classic guilty behavior-distances individual responsibility, use of royal we to express some kind of vague group defense).
ridiculous use of what the experts call story building-excessive use of useless details. who gives a rats if the window went woosh or where you sat exactly at the dinner table. even I saw how bizarre this was.
constantly blaming others.

the linguistic analyst that someone posted his clip a while back was all over this stuff.

and two clinchers they knew she was dead: kate leaving the twins still in there, with the possible abductor still about, and the twins in possible danger also, to go run back into the restuarant. no way.

them both leaving Portugal with the investigation ongoing, and still possible hope of finding her. no way. not in a million years would both parents leave, unless they knew.

add to that there refusal to cooperate with police, indeed lying to them about locked doors and other things, lawyering up yet at the same time starting a PR campaign to promote their innocence and give interviews. reminds me of the ramseys.

If those are your 'clinchers' then my God. Every single other sentence here is either taken out if context or deliberately misleading. Not one shred of evidence. Your vitriol towards them with no evidence is unhealthy. And no they are not my 'heroes' nor are they people I defend in any way leaving their three kids alone. I wouldn't do it. Ever. The other Tapas diners were just as bad. But your clinchers can not even in the slightest way be called evidence. You select actions you dislike and morph it in your head into some sort of out of context huge clincher that their guilt just shines through. It is quite frankly ridiculous.

[Sunny Delight]

I would further add that when interviewed by Police the crisis counsellor who had dealt with the McCanns found them, 'exhausted, anguished, confused and angry', and that their 'reaction relative to their daughters disappearance was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose child was taken from them against their will'.

Their former GP described how 'the couple faced some problems with conception and I recall Kate in particular was desperate to have a family. After treatment for infertility and eventually successful IVF she could not have been happier. She wanted that child so much'.

He added,

'Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born, attended all her vaccinations and all follow ups. If there was any concern at all it would have been brought to my attention'.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A few points. If the Portuguese police initially focused on the Mcann's why was Robert Murat made a suspect if they believed he had no involvement? Secondly if the Portugese police botched the investigation by focusing on the Mcanns from the start, what has Operation Grange, and all the millions spent, achieved by focusing away from the Mcann's ?
Regarding the dogs and false alarms, if the handler wanted the dogs to find a scent why not keep pointing them towards Maddie's bed? This is where she would have most likely died if she was drugged in an accident. Not behind a sofa.
Regards Darryl

[Harry D]

Hi Harry

to me it points to being a pedophile.

Also, Henry Flower made a very prescient point about it a while back. I quote him in full.

Very perceptive, Abby. I can't fault his logic.

Have you seen the video taken of them on their way to the terminal?

The person videoing (David Payne?) says, "Cheer up Gerry, you're on holiday!" only to be greeted with a "**** off. I'm not here to enjoy myself." The body language of the kids and Gerry himself is very telling.

If Gerry wasn't there to have fun, what was he there for? Does this point to an unhappy homelife? Something more sinister?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Sunny Delight]

A few points. If the Portuguese police initially focused on the Mcann's why was Robert Murat made a suspect if they believed he had no involvement? Secondly if the Portugese police botched the investigation by focusing on the Mcanns from the start, what has Operation Grange, and all the millions spent, achieved by focusing away from the Mcann's ?
Regarding the dogs and false alarms, if the handler wanted the dogs to find a scent why not keep pointing them towards Maddie's bed? This is where she would have most likely died if she was drugged in an accident. Not behind a sofa.
Regards Darryl

Daryl that was a fundamental error on behalf of the Police. The first suspects should always be the parents. They should be investigated first. Discreetly. Eliminated if possible asap.The McCann's were not. Instead the Police investigated an abduction probably committed by Robert Murat- couldn't find any concrete leads and eventually said well then it must have been the parents. Operation Grange had a limited amount of funds which was released on a 6 month basis. The scope of the investigation led to 2000 leads being pursued. And the man Jane Tanner saw being eliminated as a suspect. In fact it is now believed that Martin Smith and his family may have seen the abductor with Madeleine some 500 yards from the Ocean Club. It has been an honest and thorough investigation. In fact most senior officers now believe this was a lone wolf attack. I tend to agree. The dogs as I say offer a line of enquiry. What they sense is not standalone evidence. If the dogs alert and it is investigated but nothing found then either they made a mistake or there is another explanation.

[Sunny Delight]

Very perceptive, Abby. I can't fault his logic.

Have you seen the video taken of them on their way to the terminal?

The person videoing (David Payne?) says, "Cheer up Gerry, you're on holiday!" only to be greeted with a "**** off. I'm not here to enjoy myself." The body language of the kids and Gerry himself is very telling.

If Gerry wasn't there to have fun, what was he there for? Does this point to an unhappy homelife? Something more sinister?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Wonder what? Why don't you read the PJ files on the creche workers and their view on the McCanns relationship with their children. They saw them as loving and caring- well mannered and the kids were always happy to see them. Makes you wonder doesn't it?