Comments on: Madeleine McCann: Russian Mafia, Paedo Pics, Richard Branson PI

By: beam me up scotty

beam me up scotty — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:57:51 +0000

Didn’t see the Times. But the Daily Mail has an artical about the ‘missing 90 mins’ when Kate and the children were alone. They tend to discount the theory she wandered off and are very guarded about the abduction idea. That leaves the acidental death one - the only one left. I am confused about this ‘unacounted’ 90 mins. I thought Kate and Gerry spent the time, between the kids tea time and when they went out together, bathing the children and putting them to bed? But I’ve also heard he was playing tennis and enjoying himself while she did the work. either way, I’m looking forward to the chanel 4 program tonight.

By: jacquescousteau

jacquescousteau — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:27:24 +0000

did anyone see the article in the Times Online - From The Times
October 18, 2007
‘It’s time to discard the myths and half-truths, Madeleine McCann was taken’

this article provides truth that all the speculation here and all the evidence leaked from the Portuguese and British police and forensic teams to be spurious

we should all stop having unfounded doubts - the Times is the great purveyor of truth….when did the Times get on the Mccann band wagon?

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:04:52 +0000

coolandcalm. I think its been well established that the apartment was perhaps visable from the Tapas bar. But that they couldn’t see the door at all . But I do agree they were very careless . I cant see why they havent been charged with neglect. But early days yet.
I really dont understand all this about the Russian Maffa being involved. .Why ? Why would they be interested in one certain little girl. She sweet and sassy but no different to thousands of little girls her age.

By: The Truth

The Truth — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:33:31 +0000

They are guilty of negligence if nothing else. The fact that some nutter could steal their child is their fault. They chose to eat tapas and get pissed rather than look after their children. That is the least of their crimes irrespective of how the rest pans out. I don’t dislike her cos of her (very ordinary) looks. I dislike her cos she’s a shoite parent.

By: on2u

on2u — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:32:00 +0000

Is there any news on any investigation as to what might be on the agenda in the search for Madeleine McCann. We have gone through so many whodoneit scenerios it reads like an Agathe Christie novel.
Can we eliminate or proceed with..The lake/ the mysterious person carrying a child at the resort may 3./couple at the boat dock w/child/ the boat that was docked for an extended period of time near the resort but left shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance/of course the dna evidence in the car/ the odor of a body on the beach/and of course the johnny come lately statement of the nanny who seemingly saw someone in a yellow jacket….so many reports so few answers.

By: svetlana novockaviche

svetlana novockaviche — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:44:14 +0000

nice.

im very intrested in the russian mafia.
im from odessa

By: Peter O

Peter O — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:27:03 +0000

1137 Miss Take Says:
11131 - not inconceivable… A few weeks ago there was certainly someone on here from the PJ camp because the Anorak theories used to appear in the press the following morning as sure as the sun rose…
+++++++++++++++
That’s an amazing leap of logic? Why did it have to be someone from the PJ re-spinning Anorak theories to the papers? Why couldn’t it have been some hard up hack desperate to earn a few quid, so he dresses up the stuff we chat about in here as being from a “source close to…….”. Not saying your suggestion is entirely without merit, just pointing out that there are lots of different interpretations that can be placed on most situations we encounter. Finding the true explanation for something/some behaviour/impact, now that IS much harder.

By: Peter O

Peter O — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:19:15 +0000

1127 brandonflours Says:
Edit…
do you think funny moustache man was superimposed for
our sakes too? Edit…
++++++++++++++
Honestly don’t have a clue on that one. All of these issues could be fairly easily cleared up by a forensic examination of the original camera(s) and memory card(s) that allegedly took these photographs. It’s almost (but not impossible) too late once you are talking about a file that has been uploaded to a computer. There are so many ways, many of them genuinely accidental, in which the data that might support the veracity of the picture can/will have been altered beyond recovery.

By: Peter O

Peter O — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:12:49 +0000

1124 Miss Take Says:

1122 - Peter O. Understood. But (and I may be dreaming) I thought that you were originally pro-McCann? Edit….
++++++++++++++
I dislike the Anti or Pro McCann labels. If anything, I’m Pro-Madeleine in as much I would love to discover the truth of what has happened to this poor child, My view re the McCann’s can probably best be summarised as:

The McCann’s leave me cold, I don’t like the image they portray. That said, I know nothing about them personally. In terms of guilt, I believe on the balance of all the leaks, gossips, rumours and the fact that they are arguidos that they, and possibly some of their friends, know rather more about the events leading up to May 3rd than has yet been made public. I think they may be guilty of something but frankly I don’t have a clue what. Could be anything from simply being economical with the truth about how often the children where checked (to cover poor parenting/behaviours which may reflect poorly upon them) through to something far more sinister.

By: coolandcalm

coolandcalm — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:48:21 +0000

Edna 1258
…………………
Visually it was just across the pool and the balcony could be seen from the bar. To walk is further naturally as one has to circuit the pool. In a hurry they could run round the pool and vault the low wall in a few seconds.

As a point though, I wouldn’t have left them because although they could see it would be impossible to watch every minute. Attentions stray and time passes……

By: Edna

Edna — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:02:55 +0000

1241 Wanderer

It is closer. The flat couldn’t be seen from the bar and it was quite a walk to get there. Like being in the garden? Ha!

By: brandonflours

brandonflours — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:35:14 +0000

willow

that statement might be true
the hand that rocks the cradle and all that!
made me shiver
maybe Kate didn’t get loved and found it hard bonding
might be why she still acts like a little girl lost
seeking protection
and couldnt do so for madeleine!

By: Ferdinand

Ferdinand — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:33:23 +0000

1252
Kris Says:

A mother would not support her husband that loyal if he killed her child. She would at least tend to resent.

By: willo

willo — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:49:06 +0000

“Kate is a very sensitive, caring person and one of the most maternal people I know – she puts me to shame,” Ms Healy said.

Jesus……

By: Wanderer

Wanderer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:02:45 +0000

“I can think of a few years”

Not years, I meant things, I’ve been losing the plot for a few hours, pay no attention.

By: Wanderer

Wanderer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:00:14 +0000

1254, Kris-

I’m sure some people are sure Gerry is the one responsible, but you’re right, I think most of the public’s theories (those who even find the McCanns guilty), focus on Kate for the actual murder/accident and then Gerry for the cover-up. I can think of a few years:

-Women are generally expected to be more emotional in general (and I’ve seen much of the skepticism about the emotional displays, focus on Kate).

-The leaked entries in the diary (true or not), point more to Kate.

-The lady hearing someone yell “Daddy” (which may or may not be true and can easily be mused to paint Gerry in a guilty picture).

- That Kate discovered she was gone (although, once again, this can paint Gerry in a bad light, as he was the last one to check and come back to the table saying everything was fine).

- We know she only worked 1-2 days a week, and I think there was some questioning concerning how many days per week the nanny worked for them, etc. (three young children are quite difficult to manage, I imagine, but I know many mothers who do stay at home and tend to manage, so I suppose if the nanny was ‘full time’, I suppose that could be used to reach a decision about the parents lifestyle, etc. but still the criticism, due to gender roles, would be focused on Kate).

- I suppose some people muse that mothers are the generally the first person ‘on call’ when a child has done something or had an accident, and the ‘Madeleine did this/wasn’t doing this right and the parent snapped’ theory fits in the mother role more than the father role (typically).

-The IVF thing, I’m sure some people think it wasn’t her egg (or his sperm) and they never bonded well with her, but I think if that happened, they’d be much more wary of having the twins in general (and if there was a ‘problem’ with the egg/sperm situation for Madeleine, even if they went out to fix it with the twins, there wouldn’t be any assurances it would work, so I still think they’d be more hesitant if they were having such bonding problems).

I really have no idea myself, just trying to ponder and give reasons why people would assume Kate did it. I wonder if that also makes people feel a bit more sympathetic for Kate though, if they think she may have done it, but that Gerry played the upper-hand in organizing a cover-up (which is quite bad, especially if it was an accident).

Please, no mention of statistics, the terrible subject that is making me work all day/night

By: Kris

Kris — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:30:50 +0000

Uta, who knows. I like Kate’s parents, though, and can imagine that IF they truly have come to believe Kate knows what happened, they are urging her to come clean.

BUT, your question brings up another. Here is a question that has bothering me for quite a while, and I’ve never seen anyone bring this issue up. WHY do police think Kate was the one who accidentally killed Madeleine, and not Gerry? When there were first rumors of the parents being suspects, I naturally began to look askance at Gerry. So why Kate? Is it just because Gerry has an alibi for the few hours in question? It seems Gerry must have been an active father to Madeleine, if she was calling out for “Daddy” at night. This would also make sense, as Kate would have her hands full with the younger, needier twins.

I do believe the statistics show that these things are most often the result of some Male activity rather than Female activity. Not always of course.

By: Wanderer

Wanderer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:10:28 +0000

1252-

Uta- Possible? I think the family would insist everyone came clean (maybe, I don’t really know). Also, I think natural support would go to their daughter and blame whomever wanted to cover anything up quite a bit, but I’m pretty sure they’d be pretty upset with the actual killer as well, especially for a beloved grandchild (even if it was their child who did it). I’m not really sure, I don’t know many people who have been in such a situation and really anything is possible.

By: Uta Hagen

Uta Hagen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:49:10 +0000

Do you think Kate McCann’s mother’s interview indicates the McCann fascade is cracking? Perhaps by now, most people in the family understand that Kate and Gerry were involved in Madeleine’s disappearnce. Is Kate’s mother’s interview a signal that Kate’s family has begun to think in terms of standing behind Kate, as opposed to standing behind Kate and Gerry? If Kate made a mistake and Gerry insisted they cover it up, Kate’s family certainly would hold that against Gerry. (After all, if Madeleine, say, fell and died but her parents took her to hospital, perhaps Kate or Gerry would have had his license suspended and perhaps they’d got sme jail time. But time passes quickly and the McCanns are now in worse shape than they would have been had they come clean at the outset. My point is that perhaps Kate’s family sees Gerry as the evildoer in all of this, and resents that Kate may pay for that. Any thoughts?

By: pinkfan

pinkfan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:42:33 +0000

sorry murder 1244
October 17th, 2007 at 4:32 am

didn’t mean to cast apsersions (is that a word?)
it’s late and i am a bit past it.
apologies for being a bit “short.”
I have children who are a handful . . . as am I.
far from perfect ,all of us.
please accept regrets, I meant no offense.
truly.

pinkfan - we all need help in lots of ways, but I guess you disapproved of my reference to all the widely-reported remarks by those who knew the family about Madeleine being ‘a handful’, ’sending Kate nuts’ &c, and the expression ’slightly devilish glint’.

I wasn’t suggesting demonic possession. I’ve known lots of young kids with occasional-to-frequent devilish grins, or glints in their eyes, one being