Re: Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case

**Susan** Tue 19 May - 20:22

Pabby wrote:
StGerald wrote:so if oldfield didnt see madeleine at all then he must be in on their game of cat and mouse. think about it. if he wasnt then no way would the macs have let him go near that apartment that night.

I thought it was more that he said he'd check and he didn't, then when the shit hit the fan he said he'd checked but didn't see her. If he opened that bedroom door, he'd have seen her bed!

Yes he did say he went and checked but didnt actually check but even so...as StG said...they would never have let him check had they know she wasnt in the bedroom....so he must have known about her not being there...

Plus he can always say later if they are ever found guilty...."but I didnt say I'd seen her"

Maybe he's covered himself!

**lubelle** Wed 20 May - 9:54

Pabby wrote:
StGerald wrote:so if oldfield didnt see madeleine at all then he must be in on their game of cat and mouse. think about it. if he wasnt then no way would the macs have let him go near that apartment that night.

I thought it was more that he said he'd check and he didn't, then when the shit hit the fan he said he'd checked but didn't see her. If he opened that bedroom door, he'd have seen her bed!

He or anyone would be able to see Madeleine easier than the twins...the cot on the right, is not see through,so whoever was ckecking would have to look in to see if they were okay.

**lynn** Wed 20 May - 10:19

The thought has crossed my mind that Madeleine may not have been in that apartment at all. In fact, were all three children in there. For Kate to say she then ran down to the place where Gerry was to say Madeleine had gone, why did she leave the twins in danger. Would anyone do that - find a child missing then run out leaving the rest of the kids.

**lubelle** Wed 20 May - 10:35

lynn wrote:The thought has crossed my mind that Madeleine may not have been in that apartment at all. In fact, were all three children in there. For Kate to say she then ran down to the place where Gerry was to say Madeleine had gone, why did she leave the twins in danger. Would anyone do that - find a child missing then run out leaving the rest of the kids.

That's what i feel.I don't think she was in there that night at all.I think what ever happened had already happened.As has been said many times before..if your child had gone missing you would be screaming their name.Also you would maybe think she was with one our friends because she had woken up and they were coming to look for you.I don't think anyone would just straight away think she had been abducted...not unless it was preplanned.

**lynn** Wed 20 May - 11:09

lubelle wrote:
lynn wrote:The thought has crossed my mind that Madeleine may not have been in that apartment at all. In fact, were all three children in there. For Kate to say she then ran down to the place where Gerry was to say Madeleine had gone, why did she leave the twins in danger. Would anyone do that - find a child missing then run out leaving the rest of the kids.
That's what i feel.I don't think she was in there that night at all.I think what ever happened had already happened.As has been said many times before..if your child had gone missing you would be screaming their name.Also you would maybe think she was with one our friends because she had woken up and they were coming to look for you.I don't think anyone would just straight away think she had been abducted...not unless it was preplanned.

It is possible, you know lubelle, that that is what happened. The twins could have been in another room with the rest of the kids. Dogs don't mistake cadave scent either which is another point. Why would parents go to separate rooms anyway to check on the kids. The kids could have all been in one apartment being looked after by someone else too.

**Susan** Wed 20 May - 19:45

lynn wrote:The thought has crossed my mind that Madeleine may not have been in that apartment at all. In fact, were all three children in there. For Kate to say she then ran down to the place where Gerry was to say Madeleine had gone, why did she leave the twins in danger. Would anyone do that - find a child missing then run out leaving the rest of the kids.

I believe Madeleine either died during the day or the day before.....

Guest Wed 20 May - 19:56

Ambersuz wrote:
lynn wrote:The thought has crossed my mind that Madeleine may not have been in that apartment at all. In fact, were all three children in there. For Kate to say she then ran down to the place where Gerry was to say Madeleine had gone, why did she leave the twins in danger. Would anyone do that - find a child missing then run out leaving the rest of the kids.

I believe Madeleine either died during the day or the day before.....

But wasn't her name signed into the creche on the 2nd?? There were witnesses who saw her.

**Susan** Wed 20 May - 19:59

eddie wrote:
Ambersuz wrote:
lynn wrote:The thought has crossed my mind that Madeleine may not have been in that apartment at all. In fact, were all three children in there. For Kate to say she then ran down to the place where Gerry was to say Madeleine had gone, why did she leave the twins in danger. Would anyone do that - find a child missing then run out leaving the rest of the kids.

I believe Madeleine either died during the day or the day before.....

But wasn't her name signed into the creche on the 2nd?? There were witnesses who saw her.

Yes those same winesses also went to the McCanns home....and became friendly with them....

Lets not forget that they could have forged those records so thats not absolute proof to me!

I also dont forget that an ex M3 detective said that they went to Morocco to bribe witnesses to say they had sighted Maddie so why not these nannies too?

Guest Thu 4 Jun - 14:30

hentie wrote:I believe Madeleine either died during the day or the day before.....

But wasn't her name signed into the creche on the 2nd?? There were witnesses who saw her.[/quote]

Yes those same winesses also went to the McCanns home....and became friendly with them....

Lets not forget that they could have forged those records so thats not absolute proof to me!

I also dont forget that an ex M3 detective said that they went to Morocco to bribe witnesses to say they had sighted Maddie so why not these nannies too?[/quote]

I agree with you Amber. I believe a few people were "got at". Who's to know that the staff were doing their job properly either? I'm sure it would be easier to say they saw Madeleine rather than to admit they didn't know and therefore invite criticism as to how well they did their job. Didn't they get sent to other areas after the event!?[/quote]

I think they were sent to Coventry Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case - Page 9 303636

Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case - Page 9 303636

pm Fri 26 Jun - 8:21

Paris Match – Did you notice anything strange during your stay in the hotel?

Gerry McCann – Absolutely not, we had a very relaxing week. We were in a group of friends, we did plenty of things together, and at such times we don't pay attention to what is happening around us. We didn't see anything suspicious that week.

PM – Do you feel any guilt for having left your children alone on the evening of 3rd May?

Kate McCann – Of course we feel ourselves to blame for being at the restaurant when she disappeared. That will always be there, but the person who broke in and who took Madeleine is the most blameworthy, I think.

GM – We have no doubt, she was targeted.

KM – If we'd had to ask ourselves 'Are they safe?', we would never have left them. We never thought there was a risk. We thought we were being trustworthy and responsible. I did not think of the possibility of anybody breaking in. You never expect someone to come into where you are staying and take your child from her bed. The only reason for our comings and goings, it was in case they woke up.

in Paris Match, 04 September 2007 [no online link]

* Gerry's blog, 04 September 2007, Day 124

Kate and I did our first interview for a French Publication today. Any interviews we do now, of which we only accept a small percentage of bids, focus on the issues that we have faced since Madeleine's abduction.(...)

By Joana Morais

**Susan** Mon 29 Jun - 19:21

Breaking in?

There was no break in!! FACT!

Guest Sun 30 Aug - 17:54

Hiya Amber

and that is the really fundamental fact IMO, that distinguishes those with a bit of common sense (we can see this couple tell some pretty wicked lies and therefore must know and be criminally involved in what happened to their daughter) and those who believe in fairy stories (even if a paedophile has got Maddie, he will be treating her like a little Princess, and, as soon as he has finished with her, our latest PIs will rush her back to us, completely safe and well).

But there is one word Gerry used there that just really sums him up, "bids", is he bragging to us now about how he has to carefully sift all these mugs who are queuing up to allow him to cash in a bit more. It is a bit like "summative overview" on his flip chart. Totally off the wall Gerry and totally inappropriate and that just sums you up in the mildest possible way ( I am new here and trying to behave)

Definitions of bid on the Web: (it is all about his demands and the best possible price he can get, he is too important to waste his time on the lesser mortals or those without the serious cash, or those with any concern about what he did with his daugher, bullion now there is a word that dilates his pupils)

•offer: propose a payment; "The Swiss dealer offered $2 million for the painting"
•command: an authoritative direction or instruction to do something
•make a demand, as for a card or a suit or a show of hands; "He called his trump"
•an attempt to get something; "they made a futile play for power"; "he made a bid to gain attention"
•make a serious effort to attain something; "His campaign bid for the attention of the poor population"
•a formal proposal to buy at a specified price
•A bid price is the highest price that a buyer (i.e., bidder) is willing to pay for a good. It is usually referred to simply as the "bid."
•An offer at an auction; A (failed) attempt to receive or intercept a pass; To issue a command; to tell; To invite; to summon; to offer; To utter
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bid

•The price at which a dealer is willing to buy.
www.thebulliondesk.com/html/glossary.htm

Guest Wed 2 Sep - 18:31

Viv we will never know what happened to maddie, poor little thing, but every thing the maccs say and do all revolves around money,i dont think she is alive though,

**Susan** Wed 2 Sep - 21:39

Hi viv!

Sorry I missed this post..... Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case - Page 9 307691

as usual!

We have alot of your articles here on the forum!

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/blog-articles-opinions-from-anti-s-f17/vivs-articles-t2789.htm

Guest Thu 3 Sep - 2:36

''The only reason for our comings and goings ,it was in case they woke up'' This woman really doesn't know how stupid she sounds !!

Just a couple of points to Kate could have been ...but if they had woken up they could have cried alone in the dark for up to half an hr and been very frightened, or got out of bed and hurt themselves, or fallen over and knocked themself unconcious ,as that is how often you said you checked them !!

With that in mind and ruling out an abduction do you still believe your checking system was safe ??As a mother why did these dangers never occur to you ??

I would love to see her asked these questions and have to answer them !

weissnicht Mon 14 Sep - 17:59

Kate McCann – Of course we feel ourselves to blame for being at the restaurant when she disappeared. That will always be there, but the person who broke in and who took Madeleine is the most blameworthy, I think.

She is insane.

**Alpine Aster** Tue 15 Sep - 11:33

weissnicht wrote:
Kate McCann – Of course we feel ourselves to blame for being at the restaurant when she disappeared. That will always be there, but the person who broke in and who took Madeleine is the most blameworthy, I think.

She is insane.

Indeed..... hiya weissnicht Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case - Page 9 Icon_flower

good to see you here, hope you are ok?....

Guest Tue 15 Sep - 21:37

Carrie wrote:This is typical McCann-speak. Does the woman not realise how ridiculous she sounds. IF Madeleine was taken (and that is a huge IF), then if they had been there, and not at the restaurant, then it is glaringly obvious that the abduction wouldn't have occured. They always try and pass the buck, and seem completely unable to grasp the glaring truth - parents should not leave young kids alone, ever. And she's a doctor; heaven help us all.

I always think they HAD to leave for dinner to be able to fake the fake abduction. Most probably Madeleine passed away and what to do, going out as always, do as if nothing happened and than fake an abduction to avoid an OBduction (autopsie), which would show the cause why "our" Madeleine passed away.

**Annabel** Mon 28 Sep - 15:23

Monday, 28 September 2009
Thought For Today: Donal MacIntyre
.
Do I owe Donal MacIntyre an apology?

For me to do so I have to credit the Express with a quality I have trouble associating them with; subtlety.

I'm far from convinced that I do, not given all the shameful tripe and sycophantic drivel they have published since they rolled over.

And in this climate of drivel how can I be convinced that the article, so poorly researched, so lacking in substance, and so ridiculous to anybody that has taken a moment or two to study the facts of the case, is not to be taken at face value?

Although the offending article could be construed as great satire, and if it were in fact satirical, I think it's a stretch for the Express to expect it's readers to differentiate between the tripe it normally publishes and this particular piece of nonsense.

http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/

**Lilemor** Sat 10 Oct - 9:34

Old article regarding the fund and defense-costs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562813/McCanns-may-use-Madeleine-fund-for-defence.html

McCanns may use Madeleine fund for defence

By Nick Britten
Published: 4:34PM BST 11 Sep 2007
Madeleine McCann's parents want to use the £1 million fund donated by the public to help pay for their defence.
Full coverage: The search for Madeleine McCann
The six directors controlling Madeleine's Fund will meet within the next 24 hours to discuss whether to release the money if the McCanns are charged.
The move could anger many donors who handed over money believing it would be used solely to help find the missing four-year-old.

If it is decided not to use the cash, the McCanns face financial ruin.
They are thought to earn around £120,000 a year but have not worked since May.
Mr McCann, a cardiologist, has been on unpaid leave and Mrs McCann has given up her role as a GP.
With no income and facing huge legal bills for a fight that could last several years, the couple will have to find the money from other donors, their family or through drastic measures like selling their house.
They are keen for the money to be released after hiring a senior legal team including Michael Caplin QC, who has represented a string of high-profile clients such as General Augusto Pinochet.
One director, Esther McVey, a former television presenter, said: "At the moment none of the fund has been used to pay for the defence case. But we are convening a meeting to decide if it can be used.
"When the fund was set up, one of its stated aims was to provide financial support for Madeleine's family as they searched for her.
"We are uncertain if the use of the money to pay for lawyers in these unexpected circumstances would be in the spirit of that aim. We will be taking advice from a barrister."
Miss McVey, 39, a friend of Mrs McCann's since their student days, refused to comment on whether people had begun asking for their money back after the McCanns were named as formal suspects.
Because the fund is a private business and not a registered charity, the money is not ring-fenced for a particular purpose and there is little to stop the McCanns using the money for legal fees.
The Charity Commission ruled that the fund could not be registered because its aims were not broad enough. Instead, Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd, was set up as a company. It means that the McCanns only have to get the directors' consent to access the cash.
As well as Miss McVey, the board includes Doug Skehan, 54, a clinical director of cardiology at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester and colleague of Mr McCann, Peter Hubner, 64, a retired consultant and Philip Tomlinson, 76, a lawyer, both of whom are friends.
John McCann, 48, Mr McCann's brother, and Mr Kennedy are also directors but Miss McVey said they would not be able to vote because they are family members.

I haven´t seen this article before but now I am really shocked!
Kennedy is family member?
Donators maybe wahted money back?
Fund was set up to help the McCanns = pay top lawyers?

What about the meeting with the lawyers?

Do we know the results?

Did they in fact pay their defence costs via their daughters fund?

Legal insanity IMO.
It is like irreal.

**Angelina** Sat 10 Oct - 9:43

Lilemor wrote:Old article regarding the fund and defense-costs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562813/McCanns-may-use-Madeleine-fund-for-defence.html

McCanns may use Madeleine fund for defence

By Nick Britten
Published: 4:34PM BST 11 Sep 2007
Madeleine McCann's parents want to use the £1 million fund donated by the public to help pay for their defence.
Full coverage: The search for Madeleine McCann
The six directors controlling Madeleine's Fund will meet within the next 24 hours to discuss whether to release the money if the McCanns are charged.
The move could anger many donors who handed over money believing it would be used solely to help find the missing four-year-old.

If it is decided not to use the cash, the McCanns face financial ruin.
They are thought to earn around £120,000 a year but have not worked since May.
Mr McCann, a cardiologist, has been on unpaid leave and Mrs McCann has given up her role as a GP.
With no income and facing huge legal bills for a fight that could last several years, the couple will have to find the money from other donors, their family or through drastic measures like selling their house.
They are keen for the money to be released after hiring a senior legal team including Michael Caplin QC, who has represented a string of high-profile clients such as General Augusto Pinochet.
One director, Esther McVey, a former television presenter, said: "At the moment none of the fund has been used to pay for the defence case. But we are convening a meeting to decide if it can be used.
"When the fund was set up, one of its stated aims was to provide financial support for Madeleine's family as they searched for her.
"We are uncertain if the use of the money to pay for lawyers in these unexpected circumstances would be in the spirit of that aim. We will be taking advice from a barrister."
Miss McVey, 39, a friend of Mrs McCann's since their student days, refused to comment on whether people had begun asking for their money back after the McCanns were named as formal suspects.
Because the fund is a private business and not a registered charity, the money is not ring-fenced for a particular purpose and there is little to stop the McCanns using the money for legal fees.
The Charity Commission ruled that the fund could not be registered because its aims were not broad enough. Instead, Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd, was set up as a company. It means that the McCanns only have to get the directors' consent to access the cash.
As well as Miss McVey, the board includes Doug Skehan, 54, a clinical director of cardiology at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester and colleague of Mr McCann, Peter Hubner, 64, a retired consultant and Philip Tomlinson, 76, a lawyer, both of whom are friends.
John McCann, 48, Mr McCann's brother, and Mr Kennedy are also directors but Miss McVey said they would not be able to vote because they are family members.

I haven´t seen this article before but now I am really shocked!
Kennedy is family member?
Donators maybe wahted money back?
Fund was set up to help the McCanns = pay top lawyers?

What about the meeting with the lawyers?

Do we know the results?

Did they in fact pay their defence costs via their daughters fund?

Legal insanity IMO.
It is like irreal.

Isn' there a family member named Kennedy as well as Kennedy of the window empire?

**Lilemor** Sat 10 Oct - 9:50

A-ha, two Kennedys.

**Lilemor** Sat 10 Oct - 9:53

Annabel did provide us an excellent link to a McCann-news-base.

Here it is:

http://www.journalisted.com/search?q=Madeleine+Mccann&start=3250&num=25

Again, thank you Annabel. Quote of the Day - Looking back on the Madeleine case - Page 9 Icon_flower

Not good for the McCanns that all the old damning articles are still available! IMHO :-)

**fedrules** Fri 23 Oct - 22:23

Unfortunately, most people have forgotten these damning articles and will see the lack of charges as evidence that they was no case against them...

**Lilemor** Fri 23 Oct - 22:28

Yes, fedrules. But what can we do? I would have no qualm in distributing leaflets. But only leaflets without my own opinion. I would collect from the files what is significant. Nobody could sue me!

Sponsored content