Kate McCann is working on an updated paperback version of her best-seller, Madeleine

[quote="cass"]

Justiceforallkids wrote:so newbee anyone that leaves the uk goes on the lash night in night out leave 3 children alone to all kinds of dangers , and im not talking abduction - arnt scum ?

That is the thing with this story though, is it not ? There is more than one issue:

1. Do you agree or disagree that the parents were negligent in leaving their three children, under the age of three, alone, at night, in a foreign apartment

2. Do you believe or not believe that Madeleine was abducted.

Can anybody, anywwhere, of any race or creed honestly and truly answer I disagree to point 1 ? That it is ok to do this ? Even if their actions had not had such tragic consequences surely that action alone should be condemned.

Everybody can come to their own conclusions on point 2. Some draw their conclusion not to believe from reading statements and looking at what the evidence shows happened. Others choose to believe the abduction theory because the parents said so. Although they should bear in mind these are the same parents that said it is ok to leave small children alone......

So whether you believe the mccans story or not, there is no justification for condoning what they did in so far as leaving the kids alone. Then if you are in anyway a logical person, you have to say if the kids were not alone, Madeleine would not have been abducted.

Therefore they are guilty at every level - they left her alone and this in turn facilitated her abduction, or they left her alone, she came to harm and died.

One or the other happened and who can say they are "pro" those circumstances. Deep down, very very very few people in the world will feel it was the right thing for them to do. To coin a phrase - if they "are being honest" nobody should try to justify the parents actions on that night or indeed during that holiday. To do so, makes them scum, IMO.

Both your options require the children to have been left alone: That also happens to be what Healy, McCann et al have led us to believe did happen.

But did it?

According to Sky news Italian prosecutors have lodged their appeal against the overturn of Amanda Knox's murder conviction!

AND

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/amanda-knox/45322/meredith-kercher-family-launch-appeal-against-knoxs-acquittal

I think "scum of the Earth" is a bit OTT .

What we do know is that the McCanns left three young children alone every night, said they checked every 20 minutes and the time of the checks is in dispute.

I think Madeleine died in 5a accidentally but "abducted" has been the buzz word ever since, except Amaral's theory.

After 5 years and "sightings" around the World which proved to be red herrings , the McCanns can no more prove that Madeleine is alive than Amaral can
prove conclusively that she is dead.

We all know that the McCanns have never once employed recognised firms investigating missing children and have themselves profited handsomely from
Madeleine's disappearance as have, the Lawyers, PR Spokesman, Directors of NSU , bogus people paid to search for her, Merchanisers etc and when all
this is over and case closed I just wonder, if the Mccanns ARE innocent , will they regret the fact that they put their own welfare before that of their
children and the way they have used the public .

The End Is Nigh wrote:Both your options require the children to have been left alone: That also happens to be what Healy, McCann et al have led us to believe did happen.

But did it?

I suppose the point i was trying to make in that post was based on what we have been told by the parents. I do not believe anybody could truly, honestly be "pro" McCann based on what they have said happened. They have been very clear about it, they were all left alone, and they have also been very clear in not accepting responsibility for this. Therefore there should be no such thing as a "pro" mccann, unless one condones this sort of behaviour.

As for what I believe happened, no, personally I do not believe all of the children were left alone, but I wonder if Madeleine was the one left alone that night, if not every night, and this how she came to harm. In any event, I do not believe the twins were in 5a on the night of the "abduction". Perhaps she had been a disruption to the other children and their carer on other occasions and was left in 5a alone to avoid this happening again.

http://sic.sapo.pt/programas/ateaverdade/article1342958.ece - re: Madeleine

Any Portuguese speaking people in the house, - I only know the basics (thanks to my kids)

and some info on Mike Oldfield

http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html

mossman wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Both your options require the children to have been left alone: That also happens to be what Healy, McCann et al have led us to believe did happen.

But did it?

I suppose the point i was trying to make in that post was based on what we have been told by the parents. I do not believe anybody could truly, honestly be "pro" McCann based on what they have said happened. They have been very clear about it, they were all left alone, and they have also been very clear in not accepting responsibility for this. Therefore there should be no such thing as a "pro" mccann, unless one condones this sort of behaviour.

As for what I believe happened, no, personally I do not believe all of the children were left alone, but I wonder if Madeleine was the one left alone that night, if not every night, and this how she came to harm. In any event, I do not believe the twins were in 5a on the night of the "abduction". Perhaps she had been a disruption to the other children and their carer on other occasions and was left in 5a alone to avoid this happening again.

Therefore there should be no such thing as a "pro" mccann, unless one condones this sort of behaviour.

I'm not so sure about that. I think there are people who support the McCanns who are just very kind-hearted, who cannot bring themselves to accept that a couple of educated people could harm their children in any way. They have possibly developed ways of compartmentalising what I would call neglect or maybe they just don't allow themselves to think about that aspect. I think there are some folks who are sincere in their support. I think they are sincerely wrong, but sincere nonetheless.

Just the pure fact the kids were in a creche nearly ALL DAY everyday on HOLIDAY and only taken out for dinner, is BEYOND belief in my eyes.

I do believe the babies were all together being taken care of by an adult - and Maddie was left alone, (hence the baby monitor) NO NEGLECT = NO ABDUCTION

Karen wrote:http://sic.sapo.pt/programas/ateaverdade/article1342958.ece - re: Madeleine

Any Portuguese speaking people in the house, - I only know the basics (thanks to my kids)

and some info on Mike Oldfield

http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html

Hi karen, I did try to translate but it kept reverting back to Portugese, seems like it is interviews.

Oldfield is much more interesting and Amaral must call him as a Witness suerely.???


Verbatim : From Dr.Matthew Oldfields Rogatory

So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in
because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could
see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were
in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a
foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort
of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them,
erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all
completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room,
there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at
the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here".

He didn't go into the room , the shutter was down , it was dark, yet he could see all that??????

[quote="AnnaEsse"
I'm not so sure about that. I think there are people who support the McCanns who are just very kind-hearted, who cannot bring themselves to accept that a couple of educated people could harm their children in any way. They have possibly developed ways of compartmentalising what I would call neglect or maybe they just don't allow themselves to think about that aspect. I think there are some folks who are sincere in their support. I think they are sincerely wrong, but sincere nonetheless. [/quote]

AnnaEsse, I could not agree more with you. But there is a difference in supporting and condoning. I am speaking only about those who would condone what they did, and i believe they are few and far between. So whilst they are many supporters, and yes a lot of them are sincere, there should be no need for this "pro" and likewise "anti" labels. But at the end of the day the parents themselves have said they have done nothing wrong and I just cannot agree with that train of thought.

To this day I have sympathy for the McCanns. Regardless of circumstances, they have lost their child and live with what happened every day and I feel sorry for them. But I do not believe their story and I dislike what they have done since their litlte girl fell off the face of the earth and what they continue to do in her name. So am I pro or anti ? Neither, I would just like to see little Madeleine found and laid to rest peacefully, it is the very least she deserves

hiya mossman good articles by both you and annaesse, i dont have sympathy for the McCanns, any i did eroded very quickly. I am sure they suffer loss, but imo its not as big as the loss that Madeleine has faced. I feel indifferent to their "search for their daughter". I like many others would like to see madeleine found, but i feel she is no longer of this world, and the best that could be hoped for is that she is found and laid peacefully to rest. I also wouldnt mind being shown i m wrong in my thoughts. jimo

I don't have any Sympathy for the mccanns.....my Sympathy is with Madeleine and only Madeleine.


The reason I don't have Sympathy for them is as follows....they have trampled not once but many times over that child's memory in the past five years and haven't given a toss about madeleines extended familys feelings or the two remaining siblings feelings, if they did, they would tell the truth but they obviously care more about there own feelings before anyone else's.

The fact that the very person who has given his all in the last five years and has lost practically EVERYTHING due to the mccanns SPITE makes me feel even less for them and it worrys me to think these people have two children in there care and can without any feelings whatsoever separate a father from his family, his children ....and not care.....what does that say for you?


Save your sympathy for Madeleine , save your sympathy for the twins and save your sympathy for people that have given there ALL ..and still ARE...striving against all odds to get justice for a little girl that would off long been forgotten if it weren't for them.

Karen wrote:Just the pure fact the kids were in a creche nearly ALL DAY everyday on HOLIDAY and only taken out for dinner, is BEYOND belief in my eyes.

I do believe the babies were all together being taken care of by an adult - and Maddie was left alone, (hence the baby monitor) NO NEGLECT = NO ABDUCTION

Karen, I agree but obviously there is a market for full time childcare facilities so they must be used by people. Fair enough, each to their own.

But, people don't leave their kids sitting alone on a beach and head off to have lunch. People would call them insane. Likewise people do not leave small children and tiny babies in apartments alone in a strange country at night. The McCanns and their friends are no exception I think.

Why, why, why will one of the group not speak up and tell the truth though. What is it that keeps their silence for so long. I have already said I feel sorry for the McCanns but perhaps it is pity I feel. I pity them because they cannot come forward and do what is right for their child. I cannot imagine the hell they must be living behind closed doors but how can their friends sit back and say nothing. They have already admitted to having neglected their children and got away with that so what is it that binds them together.

The constant fighting and arguing against the likes of Snr Amaral, Tony Bennett et al is surely all that keeps them going. It gives them something to concentrate on. Strip that away and they will be left alone with their thoughts.

And of course these gentlemen and others like them have my sympathy but also my utmost respect.

Tanzsi, there is no search, of that I have little doubt.

kitti wrote:I don't have any Sympathy for the mccanns.....my Sympathy is with Madeleine and only Madeleine.


The reason I don't have Sympathy for them is as follows....they have trampled not once but many times over that child's memory in the past five years and haven't given a toss about madeleines extended familys feelings or the two remaining siblings feelings, if they did, they would tell the truth but they obviously care more about there own feelings before anyone else's.

The fact that the very person who has given his all in the last five years and has lost practically EVERYTHING due to the mccanns SPITE makes me feel even less for them and it worrys me to think these people have two children in there care and can without any feelings whatsoever separate a father from his family, his children ....and not care.....what does that say for you?


Save your sympathy for Madeleine , save your sympathy for the twins and save your sympathy for people that have given there ALL ..and still ARE...striving against all odds to get justice for a little girl that would off long been forgotten if it weren't for them.

I'm with you Kitti, they are undeserving of any sympathy. You only have to look at the recent photo of Amaral with Pat Brown to see that he looks ill. This brave man has paid a huge price for trying to find out what happened to their daughter. What do they care?

mossman wrote:

Karen wrote:Just the pure fact the kids were in a creche nearly ALL DAY everyday on HOLIDAY and only taken out for dinner, is BEYOND belief in my eyes.

I do believe the babies were all together being taken care of by an adult - and Maddie was left alone, (hence the baby monitor) NO NEGLECT = NO ABDUCTION

Karen, I agree but obviously there is a market for full time childcare facilities so they must be used by people. Fair enough, each to their own.

But, people don't leave their kids sitting alone on a beach and head off to have lunch. People would call them insane. Likewise people do not leave small children and tiny babies in apartments alone in a strange country at night. The McCanns and their friends are no exception I think.

Why, why, why will one of the group not speak up and tell the truth though. What is it that keeps their silence for so long. I have already said I feel sorry for the McCanns but perhaps it is pity I feel. I pity them because they cannot come forward and do what is right for their child. I cannot imagine the hell they must be living behind closed doors but how can their friends sit back and say nothing. They have already admitted to having neglected their children and got away with that so what is it that binds them together.

The constant fighting and arguing against the likes of Snr Amaral, Tony Bennett et al is surely all that keeps them going. It gives them something to concentrate on. Strip that away and they will be left alone with their thoughts.

And of course these gentlemen and others like them have my sympathy but also my utmost respect.

Tanzsi, there is no search, of that I have little doubt.

Mossman I have sometimes wondered if pressure to stay silent is being put on them by others. I believe none of the group dare speak and are living in constant fear.

jeanmonroe wrote:So absolutely NO CHANCE of finding Madeleine BEFORE the new boooook is published!
Now, how would the McS KNOW that?

They know that there is NO CHANCE of finding Madeleine, just like they knew within days of her "disappearance", that they needed the fund for legal expenses.

Goodness only knows why money for legal fees was needed at that early stage. The press was universally sympathetic so Team McCann couldn't have been envisaging suing anyone for libel.

In my opinion, it was always just a McCann mortgage and pension fund.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Goodness only knows why money for legal fees was needed at that early stage. The press was universally sympathetic so Team McCann couldn't have been envisaging suing anyone for libel.

In my opinion, it was always just a McCann mortgage and pension fund.

They knew they'd gotten themselves in a hell of a lot of trouble, and that it would take a hell of a lot of money to get themselves out of it.

Panda wrote:

Karen wrote:http://sic.sapo.pt/programas/ateaverdade/article1342958.ece - re: Madeleine

Any Portuguese speaking people in the house, - I only know the basics (thanks to my kids)

and some info on Mike Oldfield

http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html

Hi karen, I did try to translate but it kept reverting back to Portugese, seems like it is interviews.

Oldfield is much more interesting and Amaral must call him as a Witness suerely.???


Verbatim : From Dr.Matthew Oldfields Rogatory

So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in
because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could
see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were
in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a
foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort
of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them,
erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all
completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room,
there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at
the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here".

He didn't go into the room , the shutter was down , it was dark, yet he could see all that??????

##

I also remember when the McCanns did their own recon in the Documentry they did, remember the one were the american actress was brought into take the part of Kate, but they didn't show it, they cut it out, wonder why???? Well Mat was interviewed in that programe and Kate spoke about when they were in the Tapas having their "us time" Matt stood up and said to Kate when it was HER turn to do "the check" Matt said "why dont I CHECK ON MADELEINE for you"........why the hell would he say that, and not say check on the CHILDREN..............another check mate Oldfield

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Panda wrote:

Karen wrote:http://sic.sapo.pt/programas/ateaverdade/article1342958.ece - re: Madeleine

Any Portuguese speaking people in the house, - I only know the basics (thanks to my kids)

and some info on Mike Oldfield

http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html

Hi karen, I did try to translate but it kept reverting back to Portugese, seems like it is interviews.

Oldfield is much more interesting and Amaral must call him as a Witness suerely.???


Verbatim : From Dr.Matthew Oldfields Rogatory

So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in
because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could
see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were
in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a
foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort
of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them,
erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all
completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room,
there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at
the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here".

He didn't go into the room , the shutter was down , it was dark, yet he could see all that??????

##

I also remember when the McCanns did their own recon in the Documentry they did, remember the one were the american actress was brought into take the part of Kate, but they didn't show it, they cut it out, wonder why???? Well Mat was interviewed in that programe and Kate spoke about when they were in the Tapas having their "us time" Matt stood up and said to Kate when it was HER turn to do "the check" Matt said "why dont I CHECK ON MADELEINE for you"........why the hell would he say that, and not say check on the CHILDREN..............another check mate Oldfield

Snip,
the cots were
in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a
foot between the two,
Oh as much as that eh? Plenty of room for manoevre then whilst carrying a child and progressing towards an open window and jemmied shutter. Oh no that was a red herring according to Kate, to go with Gerry's seabass.

That blog on Moldfield is interesting. If I was him I'd be getting a lawyer - he could be in serious trouble if he's called and interrogated. His interview is strange and he doesn't sound like an educated man with all those 'sort of' sort of cots, sort of dropped off, sort of sides etc etc.

Sort of trying to engage brain when you know you're speaking absolute tripe. Sort of!

mossman said:

Snip "Kate hopes the paperback will be a hit with British holidaymakers over the summer. Kate, 43, a doctor, said: “Somebody holds that key piece of the jigsaw. I am hopeful that this book may help the investigation. It might prompt someone who has relevant information, maybe without even knowing it, to come forward.”

This is a give away - not only have they mis-read what the majority of people go on holiday for, relaxing, unwinding, and enjoyable time.

But it also let's us see what they are thinking - money - they are using this book and targeting it at a certain reader as a money spinner. It seems so crass IMO.

Angelique wrote:mossman said:

Snip "Kate hopes the paperback will be a hit with British holidaymakers over the summer. Kate, 43, a doctor, said: “Somebody holds that key piece of the jigsaw. I am hopeful that this book may help the investigation. It might prompt someone who has relevant information, maybe without even knowing it, to come forward.”

This is a give away - not only have they mis-read what the majority of people go on holiday for, relaxing, unwinding, and enjoyable time.

But it also let's us see what they are thinking - money - they are using this book and targeting it at a certain reader as a money spinner. It seems so crass IMO.

I couldn't agree more Angelique, the McCanns have no shame. it's not "we will pay for searching for Madeleine, it's, you will pay"...I just hope they don't
find a Publisher, Transworld certainly won't be in a hurry , they had to halve the price of the Book soon after it was launched. Doubt that the Foreign
sales amounted to much and probably didn't even get the translation costs back. I think the Sun would also be reluctant to fork out another £200,000
so that only leaves Mills and Boon .

Hi Panda

I think Transworld will be the publishers as the book will be almost the same as the original one so will only require a tweak. IMO this will be only be a very tiny tweak unless Scotland Yard are keeping Kate McCann fully informed of their every move and I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps Kate will share what her & Gerry's apparently very expensive private investigators have been up to for the last 4+ years or even share where the advance royalty money for the first book actually went? It didn't go into the "fund" that is clear.

gillyspot wrote:Hi Panda

I think Transworld will be the publishers as the book will be almost the same as the original one so will only require a tweak. IMO this will be only be a very tiny tweak unless Scotland Yard are keeping Kate McCann fully informed of their every move and I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps Kate will share what her & Gerry's apparently very expensive private investigators have been up to for the last 4+ years or even share where the advance royalty money for the first book actually went? It didn't go into the "fund" that is clear.

Or perhaps she will finally share exactly how she knew immediately that Madeleine had been 'taken,' and how she knew that Madeleine could not possibly have wandered off.