Kate McCann releasing a book...

[CRWx]

Also not forgetting Jane tanners frequent changes in how the man looked! How obvious is that.

5' 10" (25 May 2007)
5' 8" or 5' 9" (05 June 2007)
5' 7" to 5' 11" (09 June 2007)
5' 8" to 5' 10" (26 October 2007)
5' 9" (28 October 2007)
5' 6" (16 November 2007)
'probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two' (19 November 2007)

Age:
35-40

Hair:
Hair that was short on top (25 May 2007)
Dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back (05 June 2007)
Dark hair (26 October 2007)
Black hair (28 October 2007)
'Hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair' (19 November 2007)

Skin:
White (25 May 2007)
Caucasian (09 June 2007)
Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance (26 October 2007)
'More local or Mediterranean looking'/'swarthy skin' (19 November 2007)

Top clothes:
Dark jacket (25 May 2007)
Dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket (05 June 2007)
Wearing a maroon shirt (28 October 2007)
Heavy dark coat (19 November 2007)

Trousers:
Beige or golden long trousers (25 May 2007)
Light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured (05 June 2007)
Camel-coloured trousers (28 October 2007)
'He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on' (19 November 2007)
'He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress' (19 November 2007)

Build:
Medium (25 May 2007)
Slim (26 October 2007)

Shoes:
Dark shoes (25 May 2007)
Black or brown shoes (28 October 2007)

Carrying child:
'Carrying, sort of, across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.' (19 November 2007)

Child's description:
'I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet.' (19 November 2007)

Child's clothes:
'the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.'


that's how much she changed it

I know, this case has been on my mind constantly for the last few days too

mine too

 

[haze]

Also not forgetting Jane tanners frequent changes in how the man looked! How obvious is that.

5' 10" (25 May 2007)
5' 8" or 5' 9" (05 June 2007)
5' 7" to 5' 11" (09 June 2007)
5' 8" to 5' 10" (26 October 2007)
5' 9" (28 October 2007)
5' 6" (16 November 2007)
'probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two' (19 November 2007)

Age:
35-40

Hair:
Hair that was short on top (25 May 2007)
Dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back (05 June 2007)
Dark hair (26 October 2007)
Black hair (28 October 2007)
'Hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair' (19 November 2007)

Skin:
White (25 May 2007)
Caucasian (09 June 2007)
Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance (26 October 2007)
'More local or Mediterranean looking'/'swarthy skin' (19 November 2007)

Top clothes:
Dark jacket (25 May 2007)
Dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket (05 June 2007)
Wearing a maroon shirt (28 October 2007)
Heavy dark coat (19 November 2007)

Trousers:
Beige or golden long trousers (25 May 2007)
Light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured (05 June 2007)
Camel-coloured trousers (28 October 2007)
'He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on' (19 November 2007)
'He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress' (19 November 2007)

Build:
Medium (25 May 2007)
Slim (26 October 2007)

Shoes:
Dark shoes (25 May 2007)
Black or brown shoes (28 October 2007)

Carrying child:
'Carrying, sort of, across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.' (19 November 2007)

Child's description:
'I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet.' (19 November 2007)

Child's clothes:
'the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.'


that's how much she changed it

I know, this case has been on my mind constantly for the last few days too

mine too

the quotes taken from the november interview, she's really trying to make out it was a local person she saw isn't she?

 

[Every Rose]

I think what she means about the outfit is that Maddie looked beautiful and caught someones eye who may then have watched the family waiting for a chance to take her (leaving aside the fact that they were handed that chance on a plate).

She also said that someone might have known they were out because the diary in the restaurant had a note in it saying they wanted to be close to their apartment so they could keep an eye on the children and she feared someone watching them had seen it.

My LO is very blonde and has beautiful eyes. Everyone remarks on their colour and how beautiful they are.

When I dress him in certain things we are constantly being stopped by people who want to admire him. He has a particular coat from Next and some shirts from Debenhams that never fail to draw attention to him.

One woman said he looked like Royalty, I think she'd got Royal Wedding Fever because she kept saying "He could be Royalty, he looks just like Prince William when he was a young boy, he's better than Royalty!" *cue Proud Mummy Moment*

But once we had a man pay him a compliment and then say "people would pay good money for him" before he laughed and walked off. I did that thing where you start to laugh because they have but then you realise what they have said isn't funny and you have no idea what they meant but you don't like it.

So I sort of know what she means. Sometimes children do draw a lot of attention just because of how they look in a certain outfit, and who knows who might have been looking at Maddie that day?

I will say the comment from that man made me much more aware of who might be looking at LO and why.

Sorry just seen this.

I understand your point. If they had said 'we were in the wrong leaving her, we realise that now, we will feel eternally guilty' etc THEN she suggested about the outfit maybe attracting attention, I wouldn't mind that. For me, it's the lack of guilt, the way they refer to the guilt in the past tense, like they are over it ('felt' not 'feel'), the way they still try to almost, argue and defend that they were right to leave her. Your daughter was stolen & you say you were 'performing your own baby listening service'? Seriously. If she was taken, you did a terrible thing - hold your hands up. They were asked did they think they were wrong to leave her & they said they had struggled over that question. For gods sake - these are meant to be intelligant people! If I read a front page that said 'WE WERE WRONG! We accept responsibility' I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for them.

I personally think they are full of excuses for their behaviour because if they admitted some form of blame, the wouldn't be seen in such a rosy light anymore. And probably because in their heads, they need the 'abductor' to be the bad guy & not them!

I agree. If it were my child I don't think I would ever let the guilt go. Never. I'd blame myself every single day for the rest of my life regardless of if my child were found safe and sound or not. I wouldn't ever forgive myself.

I just meant that I can understand how, if Maddie was taken by a stranger who had been watching the family, Kate could feel that the way she was dressed that day had made her the child that s/he focused on. It's not so much blaming the top for her abduction as for helping Maddie to stand out to someone.

But still, if that's the way it happened, the opportunity to take her was handed to that person on a plate and I agree they are wrong not to feel guilty for that.

Perhaps they have been advised to say that they don't feel guilty because to admit to guilt could leave them open to some sort of prosecution for leaving her or something? That still doesn't make it right though.

 

[CRWx]

Changing from white to local looking portugese are NOT white, they are really tanned!!

 

[AppleBlossom]

If it wasn't so serious, I would have laughed at how ridiculous Jane Tanner's "sighting" is

 

[CRWx]

she changed it SO much

 

[EmziixBo0o]

Also not forgetting Jane tanners frequent changes in how the man looked! How obvious is that.

5' 10" (25 May 2007)
5' 8" or 5' 9" (05 June 2007)
5' 7" to 5' 11" (09 June 2007)
5' 8" to 5' 10" (26 October 2007)
5' 9" (28 October 2007)
5' 6" (16 November 2007)
'probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two' (19 November 2007)

Age:
35-40

Hair:
Hair that was short on top (25 May 2007)
Dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back (05 June 2007)
Dark hair (26 October 2007)
Black hair (28 October 2007)
'Hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair' (19 November 2007)

Skin:
White (25 May 2007)
Caucasian (09 June 2007)
Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance (26 October 2007)
'More local or Mediterranean looking'/'swarthy skin' (19 November 2007)

Top clothes:
Dark jacket (25 May 2007)
Dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket (05 June 2007)
Wearing a maroon shirt (28 October 2007)
Heavy dark coat (19 November 2007)

Trousers:
Beige or golden long trousers (25 May 2007)
Light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured (05 June 2007)
Camel-coloured trousers (28 October 2007)
'He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on' (19 November 2007)
'He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress' (19 November 2007)

Build:
Medium (25 May 2007)
Slim (26 October 2007)

Shoes:
Dark shoes (25 May 2007)
Black or brown shoes (28 October 2007)

Carrying child:
'Carrying, sort of, across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.' (19 November 2007)

Child's description:
'I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet.' (19 November 2007)

Child's clothes:
'the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.'


that's how much she changed it

I know, this case has been on my mind constantly for the last few days too

mine too

Thing is, this woman isnt going to just remember EVERY detail, i see people all the time i dont remember anything, maybe just quickly look but i dont remember colours of things what they where wearing ect unless i like something somebody is wearing id think ohh i like that... just odd how she seems to 'know' every detail

 

[EmziixBo0o]

Cant read through thread my laptops being SO slow! i cant even click on the next page have to keep turning it off doing my head in

 

[CRWx]

i think she doesn't know and pretty much makes it up although the description matches kinda to the one of the smiths originally, who they believed to be gerry.. maybe it clicked that it could of been him that's when she changed the story

 

[sophxx]

.

 

[Jem_x3]

if she did do it there clever peoplke surely you would just fade into the background?

It's not that easy to do that though ....

Lets say for arguments sake that they found Madeleine dead and cooling ... it would be obvious to any health professional/emergency services person that this wasn't something that had just happened (and they would then want to know why they hadn't been called straight away - cue charges for neglect, with all that that would entail).

So they hide the body.... their daughter is dead anyway - nothing is going to bring her back so they might reason that it makes sense to minimise the damage to their other children and themselves. Don't forget that they are doctors and reasonably used to making split second decisions and to detatching emotionally from situations.

Once they have moved the body they are going to be in even more trouble if they get found out or tell the truth ... so they decide to say that their daughter has been abducted. Because there is now no body to disprove it, they can say that they were checking the children regularly - not a perfect solution but enough to get them off of a neglect charge.

Then they tell all of their families ... and it was their families who contacted the media, started the fund etc, causing it all to snowball.... NOW if the truth comes out they will be charged with more than just neglect ... accessories after the fact, concealing a body, perverting the course of justice, wasting police time ... and of course fraud.

Even worse, they can't just vanish from the public eye, because their families would want to know why they aren't 'out there' looking for publicity, funds and so on ... they have painted themselves into a corner and there is no way out

but other people whos children are missing have just disapperaed from public eye only popping up every now and then like the little english girl taken off from the supermarket at the german army base

they could quite easily have just not pushed the subject instead of being constantly in the media until theres a body found and its proved that they killed her no one will ever change my mind i think they made a stupid and inresponsible decision leaving them and they should be punsihed by the auotherties for that but i dont belive they killed her i just cant see it

Noone is saying they killed her.. have you read any of the pages that have been linked, or watched any of the videos?

 

[Linzi]

Just been reading through all of this thread... how do you know how much of this is true? How would some random person know that Gerry had deleted the history from his phone for example?

I can't really take any of that into account personally, even the sacked police officer (or the officer who was taken off the case), everything is biased against them.

Im not standing up for them at all and Im certainly not saying they're in the right but I don't think a lot of stuff you find online can be trusted

xx

 

[binxyboo]

just been looking at the Find Madeleine website.
They ahve a page about the Find Madeleine Fund and what it is for.
This concerns me a little

The full objects of the Fund are:

* To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
* To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
* To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

What do they class as 'financial assistance'?

 

[Tasha]

just been looking at the Find Madeleine website.
They ahve a page about the Find Madeleine Fund and what it is for.
This concerns me a little

The full objects of the Fund are:

* To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
* To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
* To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

What do they class as 'financial assistance'?

Well in the past it has been used to pay for two mortgage repayments, so I guess stuff like that

 

[sophxx]

.

 

[Samemka]

if she did do it there clever peoplke surely you would just fade into the background?

It's not that easy to do that though ....

Lets say for arguments sake that they found Madeleine dead and cooling ... it would be obvious to any health professional/emergency services person that this wasn't something that had just happened (and they would then want to know why they hadn't been called straight away - cue charges for neglect, with all that that would entail).

So they hide the body.... their daughter is dead anyway - nothing is going to bring her back so they might reason that it makes sense to minimise the damage to their other children and themselves. Don't forget that they are doctors and reasonably used to making split second decisions and to detatching emotionally from situations.

Once they have moved the body they are going to be in even more trouble if they get found out or tell the truth ... so they decide to say that their daughter has been abducted. Because there is now no body to disprove it, they can say that they were checking the children regularly - not a perfect solution but enough to get them off of a neglect charge.

Then they tell all of their families ... and it was their families who contacted the media, started the fund etc, causing it all to snowball.... NOW if the truth comes out they will be charged with more than just neglect ... accessories after the fact, concealing a body, perverting the course of justice, wasting police time ... and of course fraud.

Even worse, they can't just vanish from the public eye, because their families would want to know why they aren't 'out there' looking for publicity, funds and so on ... they have painted themselves into a corner and there is no way out

but other people whos children are missing have just disapperaed from public eye only popping up every now and then like the little english girl taken off from the supermarket at the german army base

they could quite easily have just not pushed the subject instead of being constantly in the media until theres a body found and its proved that they killed her no one will ever change my mind i think they made a stupid and inresponsible decision leaving them and they should be punsihed by the auotherties for that but i dont belive they killed her i just cant see it

Noone is saying they killed her.. have you read any of the pages that have been linked, or watched any of the videos?

yep i have thanks and also watched the documentray on youtube that the portuguse inspetor realised after he steped down still i dont belive it

and people are saying theyve killed her or drugged her or it was accident they covered up all the same im just glad im not them or there family and reading this

Why? This is a couple who left two 2 year olds & a 3 year old in a room alone, when the previous night Madeline had cried for over an hour for them when they weren't there. She asked her Mum why she didn't come when they cried - they still saw fit to repeat their actions. A couple on holiday with a group of friends, all with children under three years old - some as young as 19 MONTHS - who ALL saw fit to leave their children unattended. A man who STILL despite EVERYTHING that has happened, maintains that 'we did what any reasonable person would do' (with regards to leaving their children). Come off it...

I'm sure they really won't give a damn!

(No no, sorry, I'm sure what'd they'd say is 'there is no evidence to suggest Madeline has come to any harm' )

 

[binxyboo]

they actually left their children alone for 4 nights in a row according to some reports

 

[Samemka]

Just been reading through all of this thread... how do you know how much of this is true? How would some random person know that Gerry had deleted the history from his phone for example?

I can't really take any of that into account personally, even the sacked police officer (or the officer who was taken off the case), everything is biased against them.

Im not standing up for them at all and Im certainly not saying they're in the right but I don't think a lot of stuff you find online can be trusted

xx

A lot of this information comes from official police files which have been made public. This info has then, in most cases, been put to the McCanns, who have commented on it. Gerry said that the reason his calls/texts were deleted was because his phone only held 10 records (which may be true but they weren't block deleted, it was selective, the same with Kate's). That's their problem - they never shut up. They dig themselves a hole everytime they open their mouths! They forget what they have said - but they don't just forget a few details, they literally FORGET what they have said, because IMO it never happened. How can you explain Kate saying (video on youtube, so she hasn't been misquoted) she never physically searched for Madeline, yet now saying in her new book she looked through the undergrowth? You either did or didn't. No confusion!

 

[sophxx]

.

 

[Samemka]

im not talking about them leaving them if you read back i said its digusting that they did and they should be punished but there family did nothing wrong her mum his mum sisiters ect i wouldnt want to read about people disscusing my family on the net thats all i was saying espically when we dont know for sure everything that we read on the net is ture i dont belive everyuthing that the police man who was thrown out of the case says its very one sided and whos to say things werent planted in certain places we dont know we wasnt there and its not like its never happened before is it???

no one will every know what really happened apart maddy her parents and maybe some of the friends we can all invite what could have happended by what we read but not everything in the media on the net is ture so it really is each to there own on what they belive

I didn't say that you were defending them hun. I was pointing out that I honestly don't think Kate & Gerry would give a damn. Their families might not like it but they also have to appreciate the McCanns/Tapas 9's stories are so inconsistant & ever-changing that they are good grounds for other suggestions to be put forward. And hell - maybe it'd get them thinking too.

No one is saying this is/isn't what happened. No one knows & that's the problem. But this is a forum & people want to discuss things & if you're going to release a book to reignite interest you have to accept that some of the interest, based on YOUR past actions, is going to bring up unpleasant questions!

Maybe they should have thought about their families from the outset & then none of this would have happened