Madeleine McCann Netflix documentary

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
Coconutshy said:
Off topic -At 27, unfortunately I regularly see many cardiologists and all have been warm and friendly. I think you may mean cardiac surgeonsOr regular surgeons. There has been evidence of this but have read about them having to be almost sociopathic to distance themselves from the line of work they do- literally cutting up someone . However a cardiologyist is just a dr who specialises in the heart and think it's unfair generalisation that all Drs are cold and calculating. How he comes across speaks volumes to me but that is just my opinion after thorough investigating the police files and things not reported on by the mainstream media. I m just giving my 2 cents here in the hope that people will investigate outside of the box and not swallow the narrative that she was abducted as the only truth.


Edit to say - he is a father, first and foremost. Being a father, he should answer the question like a father not a dr at work. If comparing your beloved daughter to a poxy student loan is normal to some people... Gosh I just don't know :(
Click to expand...

Nope, I mean cardiologists. I’m a cardiac nurse.
 
None of this so called “suspicious” behaviour by the parents - how they come across in interviews, or pictured laughing - is evidence, do people not realise this? What’s more it is out of context and totally subjective.
And things like them not providing the police with an up to date photo, if true, isn’t really suspicious even if it is odd. If they knew she was dead already why would it matter what photo they used? There is lots of stuff like that in this thread - behaviour which sounds odd but logically doesn’t contribute to the ‘they killed her’ narrative at all.

I’m not saying there’s nothing suspicious in the case, and frankly I don’t know enough about it. I have been surprised to see how many people in this thread are sure the parents are implicated somehow. I don’t know if those who suspect foul play are more likely to want to discuss it or it’s generally more common than I realised. Anyway, it’s frustrating hearing some of the more credible arguments muddied with ones that are anecdotal, irrelevant or make little sense.
 
Well I guess judging by some comments on here, that it’s perfectly normal to leave 3 children under 3 alone, in a foreign country with the apartment unlocked, because this, this really happened and no one seems to make this a fact, it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact, so whatever happened to Maddie it was her parents fault! How do people forget that?! It’s a joke!
 
No, leaving them alone was not normal or acceptable. Which is why I never questioned that. In fact I said the credible truths of the case - ie that fact - are undermined by baseless speculation and judgements about the perceived behaviour and personality of the parents.
 
So it’s their fault, hadn’t she had been left alone she would still be here. It’s not normal for a cadaver dog to smell the odour without having one or smell any body fluids, in a car rented after she went missing, in items or clothing, in the wardrobe in the Mccanns bedroom, those are facts, not fiction. They have been made arguidos for a reason and they haven’t been cleared of their involvement in their daughters disappearance, that’s a fact too.
 
Yeah sure they are culpable and the stuff with the dogs is very suspicious - though I’m sure there is a counter argument. Probably about how reliable dogs are. Didn’t someone say they picked up the scent in a car they rented after her disappearance was announced, for instance?

These are the things that matter not how they should have been grieving or whatever which is a large proportion of these past 15 pages. All you are doing by bringing up the actual facts is proving that the rest is irrelevant.
 
Anita said:
Well I guess judging by some comments on here, that it’s perfectly normal to leave 3 children under 3 alone, in a foreign country with the apartment unlocked, because this, this really happened and no one seems to make this a fact, it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact, so whatever happened to Maddie it was her parents fault! How do people forget that?! It’s a joke!
Click to expand...
100% this
 
But how does one jump from definite sloppy, neglectful parenting - a tragic mistake but not an act of evil - to Gerry and co being part of a paedophile ring? Did it ever occur to anyone that the “tapas 7” have never confessed to anything because there is nothing to confess?

I’m playing devils advocate here because someone has to. The baseless speculation and assumptions on this story are just so frustrating to read.
 
Anita said:
Well I guess judging by some comments on here, that it’s perfectly normal to leave 3 children under 3 alone, in a foreign country with the apartment unlocked, because this, this really happened and no one seems to make this a fact, it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact, so whatever happened to Maddie it was her parents fault! How do people forget that?! It’s a joke!
Click to expand...

Exactly! The ONLY reason Madeleine went missing is solely her parent’s doing. Not saying they killed her but had they been looking after her properly we would not be having this debate now. Madeleine would be alive & well had she not been left alone that night.
I bet their house was well locked up & secured & everything in it insured when they went on holiday yet they left their most precious pissessions alone in an unlocked apartment. Those children were far too young & vulnerable to be left like this & incapable of raising the alarm or defending themselves against intruders. I bet when Kate & Gerry returned to the apartment after their boozy dinner each night they locked the door behind them, so only thinking if themselves!
They left themselves wide open for something like this to happen & unfortunately an innocent child suffered for their selfishness. It makes me furious! 😡
 
Horatio said:
But how does one jump from definite sloppy, neglectful parenting - a tragic mistake but not an act of evil - to Gerry and co being part of a paedophile ring? Did it ever occur to anyone that the “tapas 7” have never confessed to anything because there is nothing to confess?
alculated
I’m playing devils advocate here because someone has to. The baseless speculation and assumptions on this story are just so frustrating to read.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of holes in the stories of everyone involved. The demeanour of Gerry is MY opinion on which I am entitled to. Everything else is pulled from direct interviews or the official investigation statements and that of Gonçalo ameral who has been vilified by the media and the mccanns for daring to conclude evidence from the official investigation and make it public knowledge as the British media seemed to be silenced and never report any other viewpoint. Blood and cadaver odour are pretty damning evidence to suggest foul play. Washing your beloved child's favourite teddy, with their scent on it, bleaching and scrubbing tiles and odours found on Kate's clothes and I think perhaps a tennis bag (not100%, just going by memory) alongside other observations by a lot of people by the cold calculated behaviour of the mccanns is also damning evidence. You really need to investigate more and read the PJ files.

It's always hard to think about a parent doing something awful (possibly accidental) but the sad reality is, it's more common than you think. Everything speculated here has been drawn from evidence presented. All we can do is speculate, until she is actually found. Nobody knows otherwise.
 
Well I finished it last night and still none the wiser, I'm 80% sure now they had nothing to do with it. I think their behaviour was probably linked to guilt of leaving her. I think they probably lied about checking on her and how much calpol they'd given. I don't think they've ever helped themselves in the way they came across. There was too much money thrown at them. I wasn't convinced by the dogs either.

I think it's just so sad that she will likely never be found. I wonder if they hadn't had the money, the high contacts, the expensive PR and the expensive lawyers if the police here would have brought some sort of charges against them for negligence or maybe investigated them and their friends more to see their involvement. It's strange that it was a busy holiday resort yet not many people saw much.
 
Coconutshy said:
There are a lot of holes in the stories of everyone involved. The demeanour of Gerry is MY opinion on which I am entitled to. Everything else is pulled from direct interviews or the official investigation statements and that of Gonçalo ameral who has been vilified by the media and the mccanns for daring to conclude evidence from the official investigation and make it public knowledge as the British media seemed to be silenced and never report any other viewpoint. Blood and cadaver odour are pretty damning evidence to suggest foul play. Washing your beloved child's favourite teddy, with their scent on it, bleaching and scrubbing tiles and odours found on Kate's clothes and I think perhaps a tennis bag (not100%, just going by memory) alongside other observations by a lot of people by the cold calculated behaviour of the mccanns is also damning evidence. You really need to investigate more and read the PJ files.

It's always hard to think about a parent doing something awful (possibly accidental) but the sad reality is, it's more common than you think. Everything speculated here has been drawn from evidence presented.
Click to expand...
Yes fair enough you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I just think in some of these posts people are jumping to conclusions based on them. An opinion is not really a reason to believe they killed her, as confident as a person can be in it.

And with many of these “facts” there are two sides. I’m no expert on this case but people’s complaints that the Netflix documentary is one sided seem rather hypocritical considering how one sided this thread is. For example, I’ve seen countless posts about the washing of the toy - it certainly sounds a very suspicious thing to do. But according to one poster, this was some time after the ‘abduction’ - not during the initial gathering of evidence - which is nowhere as bad. Arguably she did it an act of grief or something . I don’t want to speculate too much myself - just pointing out how this fact has been misrepresented. (Now forgive me if I’m wrong about this, I freely admit I’m going off the one post here.)
 
Horatio said:
Yes fair enough you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I just think in some of these posts people are jumping to conclusions based on them. An opinion is not really a reason to believe they killed her, as confident as a person can be in it.

And with many of these “facts” there are two sides. I’m no expert on this case but people’s complaints that the Netflix documentary is one sided seem rather hypocritical considering how one sided this thread is. For example, I’ve seen countless posts about the washing of the toy - it certainly sounds a very suspicious thing to do. But according to one poster, this was some time after the ‘abduction’ - not during the initial gathering of evidence - which is nowhere as bad. Arguably she did it an act of grief or something . I don’t want to speculate too much myself - just pointing out how this fact has been misrepresented. (Now forgive me if I’m wrong about this, I freely admit I’m going off the one post here.)
Click to expand...

"Always being washed" but still a smell of death found. Disturbing.


Just for reference

Summary of Verifiable Facts



  1. Kate McCann carried the soft toy "Cuddle Cat" constantly after Madeleine's disappearance and was rarely photographed without it.
  2. She eventually washed the toy on 12th July, 2007 - 70 days after Madeleine disappeared.
  3. She recorded in her diary that she had washed the toy because it had become "filthy" and "smelly."
  4. The sniffer dogs arrived in Praia da Luz on 30th July - 18 days after Kate washed the soft toy.
  5. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Kate confirmed these details and added that Cuddle Cat was "always" being washed

Discussion

As with most of the MMRG's "facts", this one consists of several independent statements. These will be addressed separately.
Kate McCann clutched ‘Cuddle Cat’ in front of TV cameras, claiming it reminded her of Madeleine, and was ‘comforting’.
  1. Yet shortly before the sniffer dogs arrived, she washed Cuddle Cat, claiming it ‘smelled of sun tan lotion’.
  2. This would make forensic analysis of it much harder.
 
Last edited:
Um i’m well aware that suspicious behaviour is not evidence thank you very much.

All the inconsistencies and lies are a bigger mystery to me than the actual event.
People will continue to speculate because not everyone is going to just accept that she was abducted because the only thing to suggest that is the fact that she’s missing, nothing else.
A hell of a lot of money has been spent and very little of if used to actually search.

You say your playing devils advocate because someone has too - I think most people believe she was kidnapped on holiday and that kidnapped calmly walked out the front of the building carrying her in his arms and was seen by several people doing so.
 
Coconutshy said:
Summary of Verifiable Facts



  1. Kate McCann carried the soft toy "Cuddle Cat" constantly after Madeleine's disappearance and was rarely photographed without it.
  2. She eventually washed the toy on 12th July, 2007 - 70 days after Madeleine disappeared.
  3. She recorded in her diary that she had washed the toy because it had become "filthy" and "smelly."
  4. The sniffer dogs arrived in Praia da Luz on 30th July - 18 days after Kate washed the soft toy.
  5. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Kate confirmed these details and added that Cuddle Cat was "always" being washed
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. I am genuinely interested, just find people stating opinion as fact so irritating - plus in our age of internet based conspiracies it can be hard to know what to believe even when things are presented as fact.
If it’s true the toy was always being washed, could you not argue that she did it in an attempt to do something normal and routine in the midst of chaos?
 
Horatio said:
Thanks for this. I am genuinely interested, just find people stating opinion as fact so irritating - plus in our age of internet based conspiracies it can be hard to know what to believe even when things are presented as fact.
If it’s true the toy was always being washed, could you not argue that she did it in an attempt to do something normal and routine in the midst of chaos?
Click to expand...

If her "abductor" had touched that teddy, washing it before the dogs and other testing was done may have interfered with DNA evidence from said alleged abductor. Any parent would hope for any DNA or clue, such as fingerprints, small clothes fibres or bodily fluids from the "abductor" to be found, so that they have answers. Another thing is as a mother, no matter how "dirty" this teddy was, it was one of the last things that precious child clutched before she was "taken". Kate's famous words - " they've taken her!!!" When she first noticed she was missing, what a peculiar thing to say. Who is "they"? Why not assume the child has gone out into the streets to look for her parents because she is scared and alone in a foreign county. Why if "they" have taken her did she rush off and leave her other two equally precious babies alone, asleep in the apartment, whilst she went to raise the alarm. I could understand washing it after sniffer dogs being all over it but that's not the case. They were presented with a clean toy that still produced evidence and not implicating some outside source.
 
Vee6 said:
Um i’m well aware that suspicious behaviour is not evidence thank you very much.

All the inconsistencies and lies are a bigger mystery to me than the actual event.
People will continue to speculate because not everyone is going to just accept that she was abducted because the only thing to suggest that is the fact that she’s missing, nothing else.
A hell of a lot of money has been spent and very little of if used to actually search.

You say your playing devils advocate because someone has too - I think most people believe she was kidnapped on holiday and that kidnapped calmly walked out the front of the building carrying her in his arms and was seen by several people doing so.
Click to expand...
I meant devils advocate in this thread where 99% of people think her parents killed her. I am just questioning the thought patterns that have lead to these conclusions.
Regarding the money raised, did the Mcanns actually profit from it? I saw one documentary about a scam artist that took over the investigation pretending to be more experienced in espionage than he was, who siphoned £1m out of the fund. It wasn’t a very good documentary so not sure how accurate it was, he ended up in prison but for a different scam.
The McCann’s may well have profited from their book or interviews but stealing directly from donations raised to find her surely would lead them to prison?

Coconutshy said:
If her "abductor" had touched that teddy, washing it before the dogs and other testing was done may have interfered with DNA evidence from said alleged abductor. Any parent would hope for any DNA or clue, such as fingerprints, small clothes fibres or bodily fluids from the "abductor" to be found, so that they have answers. Another thing is as a mother, no matter how "dirty" this teddy was, it was one of the last things that precious child clutched before she was "taken". Kate's famous words - " they've taken her!!!" When she first noticed she was missing, what a peculiar thing to say. Who is "they"? Why not assume the child has gone out into the streets to look for her parents because she is scared and alone in a foreign county. Why if "they" have taken her did she rush off and leave her other two equally precious babies alone, asleep in the apartment, whilst she went to raise the alarm. I could understand washing it after sniffer dogs being all over it but that's not the case. They were presented with a clean toy that still produced evidence and not implicating some outside source.
Click to expand...
Sniffer dogs aren’t forensics though. That’s what finds DNA - and surely happened at the time or should have done? This sort of evidence can’t have been very accurate after so much time, washed or not. Why did it take so long for the dogs to be brought in? Genuine question, not an argumentative one. Was this the point the police started looking into them?
 
Last edited:
they seem to have spent a huge amount of the money suing anyone that questions the abduction theory.
We don’t really need anyone to play devils advocate to say there was a kidnapping, we are well aware of that as a theory.

In terms of justice for the little girls every angle should be investigated. Operation grange bizarrely seem to base the investigation purely on a kidnapping, and started from there. That rings alarm bells for me. I have no police experience but surely you start an investigation looking at everything with fresh eyes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top