You write as if the parents are not suspects but considered innocent by both the PJ and British police. Why?
The reason other parents are not disliked when in the same situation as the Mccanns is obviously because they are not suspected of harming their child. You seem to totally ignore the fact that there is suspicion that they are involved. When there is a likelihood that parents may have contributed to the demise of their daughter people are hardly going to feel sorry for them are they? Coupled with their weird and odd behaviour, inappropiate remarks and flippant, lighthearted demeanour after M went missing, it is no wonder people can’t stand them.

You are suggesting that the McCanns are LYING about having no doubt about a paedophile being involved. Yes, possibly Gerry is lying, since he has lied on many occasions. Or possibly, the suggestion that he is lying about this is the smokescreen.

Edit…

However, Petero, in this case so far, EVERY SINGLE EMBELLISHMENT the McCanns have made to their fantastic abduction story has had a specific purpose in providing an “explantion” for something that happened? Why should we not think that the insistence on a paedophile predator is not the same? — For example, it could be the ingredient necessary to “explain” the fact that paedophiles were seen lurking around the McCanns wherever they went. Right from April 30 in Sagres, a suspected paedophile was seen near the McCanns. Why are paedophiles orbiting the McCanns like planets around the sun? Were they tracking Madeleine, targeting her? OR WERE THE ACQUAINTANCES OF THE MCCANNS?

++++++++++++

I wasn’t suggesting that paedophilia was not a possibility in this case. I agree that it is one possible explanation. I was just pointing out possible alternative scenarios.

One of the reasons that so many people are suspicions of the McCann’s is that a lot of what passes from their lips is fabrication, in my opinion. One of the challenges we have is trying to figure out which is complete fabrication, which might bear some relation to true events and indeed which is the truth/just plain bad PR.

I wasn’t aware that there were confirmed sightings of known paedophiles arund the McCann’s? Can you explain please?

You are suggesting that the McCanns are LYING about having no doubt about a paedophile being involved. Yes, possibly Gerry is lying, since he has lied on many occasions. Or possibly, the suggestion that he is lying about this is the smokescreen.

“They have… always sought to play down their culpability in the alleged abduction by talking about the “evil predator” being the real guilty party in all of this.”

Talking about an “abductor” has the same effect. Introducing an evil paedophile predator does not further “play down” their culpability.

” i.e. They needed to paint someone else as the greater evil than themselves and their alleged child minding.”

They needed to invent a paedophile because they neglected their children? Someone who kidnaps a child for other reasons was not evil enough to cover up their culpability? Good smokescreen, Petero.

A much simpler explanation would be because they fear that the police have evidence of sexual abuse. They fear this because they KNOW that paedophilic activities were taking place. Back to the same question: HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS? or if you prefer, WHO TOLD THEM THIS?

“This does not of course exclude the possibility of the alleged abduction itself also being a part of the “sympathy smokescreen” itself…”

True, possibly no abduction took place — that was a smokescreen. In addition you are suggesting that possibly no paedophiles are involved — that being an embellishment to the smokescreen.

However, Petero, in this case so far, EVERY SINGLE EMBELLISHMENT the McCanns have made to their fantastic abduction story has had a specific purpose in providing an “explantion” for something that happened? Why should we not think that the insistence on a paedophile predator is not the same? — For example, it could be the ingredient necessary to “explain” the fact that paedophiles were seen lurking around the McCanns wherever they went. Right from April 30 in Sagres, a suspected paedophile was seen near the McCanns. Why are paedophiles orbiting the McCanns like planets around the sun? Were they tracking Madeleine, targeting her? OR WERE THE ACQUAINTANCES OF THE MCCANNS?

“No doubt 543 you will be providing a link for these statements attributed to the fragrant duo…”

I did not quote any statements by the McCanns that require attributions. I merely said that they have KNOWN WITHOUT A DOUBT that Madeleine was abducted by a PREDATOR PAEDOPHILE. Strangely enough, not a single inquisitive journalist has asked them point-blank how they could possibly know such a thing.

+++++++++++++++

One alternative possible explanation for their ongoing insistence regarding paedophilia is that it was intended to be part of their “sympathy smokescreen”. Just my opinion.

They have, again in my opinion, always sought to play down their culpability in the alleged abduction by talking about the “evil predator” being the real guilty party in all of this. i.e. They needed to paint someone else as the greater evil than themselves and their alleged child minding.

This does not of course exclude the possibility of the alleged abduction itself also being a part of the “sympathy smokescreen” itself, in my opinion.

I did not quote any statements by the McCanns that require attributions. I merely said that they have KNOWN WITHOUT A DOUBT that Madeleine was abducted by a PREDATOR PAEDOPHILE. Strangely enough, not a single inquisitive journalist has asked them point-blank how they could possibly know such a thing.

As for the validity of MY interpretation, there are plenty of sources, from May to December, that show the persistence and consistency of the McCanns HAVING NO DOUBT about a paedophile network being involved. Gerry said it. Team McCann said it. And Metodo3 obediently followed too. They have proffered NO OTHER EXPLANATION, and have always insisted on this one.

Here’s just one example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494747&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
“In a video diary to be shown in tonight’s documentary, Gerry McCann speaks of his fears that an abductor had watched the family for days.

He said: “I’ve no doubt Madeleine was targeted and that makes us sick to the core to think that someone was watching us and our daughter. I think the true word is a predator.” “

The PJ former spokesman for Madeleine’s case, Olegário de Sousa and its chief investigator, Gonçalo Amaral, were today accused by Sharon Hendry, from The Sun, of “mocking the harried parents” of Madeleine McCann, while in the middle of a lunch, at Carvi restaurant, near the police headquarters in Portimão. The newspaper wrote that both detectives were having lunch …Olegário de Sousa and Gonçalo Amaral “asked for the Portuguese TV news to be switched on and sat at the table watching it (…) Madeleine’s parents had given a press conference in Berlin . . . The police were laughing and joking among themselves while it was on. They seemed to be sharing some sort of in-joke.”

If it was an “in” joke, I would think a journalist would be curious enough to ask them about it. Then maybe he could get a good laugh too, and a scoop as well.

He was seen a week earlier in the southern Sagres region taking pictures of children. He had even tried to force one child into his car, according to the Publico daily.”

Maybe this is the McCann’s friend who owns the disused barn near Sagres? Perhaps the McCanns were in Sagres to pay him a visit and exchange niceties?

Oh, well, I guess the McCanns felt no need to heed the advice of crime experts, for they KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that Madeleine was abducted by a PAEDOPHILE PREDATOR. It’s just surprising that no one , in any interview, thought to ask them HOW they know this.

The McCanns presumably know a lot about paedophiles — much more than you, me, or crime experts…

December 21st, 2007 at 5:32 am
So the police say theres more than one person involved in the abduction, well so there was an abduction!, knew it!!!! most on here believe the police, so do you believe them now?????
************************************************************
I have been saying that since May, two men, “speak like Dora” which could mean Spanish or Portuguese to the untutored ear.

WHEN? Did they bring the children then too? Isn’t this an important point?

“Abductors could have spied on girl for days
By Richard Edwards and Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 2:26am BST 12/05/2007

“Detectives have discovered that the McCann family went to the town of Sagres, on the southern tip of the Algarve, on April 30.”

This is the place said to be 25km away, not far from the disused barn. What were they doing there?

“A witness has told police that on the same day he saw a suspicious man following families and photographing children, including his daughter, a blonde girl “strikingly similar” to Madeleine.”

“Detectives are working on the theory that the abductors may have seen Madeleine in Sagres and tracked her back to the family apartment in Praia da Luz, 18 miles away.”

The Telegraph does not know what theory the detectives were working on.

“A witness, Nuno Lorenco, said he saw a man following his family down the beach and taking “discreet” photographs. He said he challenged the man, who fled with a blonde woman in a Renault Clio.”

Is this the same witness mentioned above? If so, it’s a poorly written article for Witness A sees someone following “families” while Witness B sees someone following “his family”. I will assume B is the real thing, and A is the spin applied to make that “someone” seem like a PREDATOR.

So, who is Numo Lorenco, and why was someone taking pictures of his blonde daughter?

The presumption in this article is that the same guy taking pictures of Numo’s daughter also noticed Madeleine, and made her his target. But turn it all around, and it could be a member of Team McCann taking pictures of blonde girls. BTW, big question: WAS MADELEINE IN SAGRES WITH THEM ON APRIL 30? You would think so, since the suspicion is that she was photographed and targetted there.

But, alas, not a single photo of Madeleine in Sagres. Maybe she was already dead and buried at the disused barn, eh? Were the McCanns taking photos that could be used for some purpose or other, perhaps via photoshop alterations?

“Police have asked the McCanns for all the photographs from the trip to Sagres, and the rest of their holiday, looking for suspects in the background.”

Or maybe the police asked themselves the same question I just asked. Now, did the McCanns turn over any pictures to the police, or did they make up excuses for not having any?…

“In a statement on behalf of the family, he [Gerry] said yesterday: “We have now seen at first hand how hard the police are working in the search for Madeleine and their strong desire to find her.”

That’s nice, Gerry. Did you cooperate and turn over all your pictures?

“We are doing absolutely everything to assist the police with their investigation and we will leave no stone unturned in the search for our daughter, Madeleine.”

That’s nice, Gerry. Did you cooperate and turn over all your pictures?

“David Beckham, the Real Madrid footballer, made a television appeal yesterday… He said: “We need to do everything possible to help police.”"

The McCanns have not done what Beckham said needs to be done. I wonder how Beckham feels about that?

Now, then, where are the pictures of Madeleine in Sagres? Where is the FIRST picture of Madeleine taken at PDL? Why did the McCanns go to Sagres? To meet the owner of a disused barn? That was April 30!

Thank you very much for that information. All very interesting indeed!

StTEVO, you’e fucked….. me boy……

Slainte to you all for the New Year!!!!

Is there any way that the information and technology could be tampered with. Also, if the McCanns knew this about mobile phone tracing and landlines, why were they not more careful.
For the authorities to go to all this trouble they must have a reason to do so and it may turn out to be really big.
***
ABC news announced just a few weeks ago that you can be traced down to within a few feet by a cell phone and the microphone can be activated even when the phone is off. All it needs is a working battery.
Now that the PJ-detectives have the legal authority to do so, they can look at all the records for the summer in PDL and reconstruct the movements of everyone physically near the MW complex. One by one they can account for anyone in the area that would had a phone.
If also means that they could listen to any of the Tapas conversations any time they wanted to, provided they had the warrants to do so, and the technology from a crime center.

Is there any way that the information and technology could be tampered with. Also, if the McCanns knew this about mobile phone tracing and landlines, why were they not more careful.
For the authorities to go to all this trouble they must have a reason to do so and it may turn out to be really big.