Lying in the Sun

In Reply to Guestbook

In Reply to Guestbook Comments

John, all theories have worth.    I say rule everything in, and nothing out.  Think outside of the box.

Even the most outrageous theories can have an element of credibility.    Look at the statements given by the McCanns and their companions.   We know they have not been completely honest, but there are elements of truth contained therein.  The McCanns have been very devious in this, slick, to mix truths with untruths.  Using what they know to be true, and adding another element to serve their own purpose.

For example - 
the crying incident.

McCanns have stated in televised interviews that their children could not have cried in their absence.   They did not accept the statement given by the upstairs neighbour who told police she had heard crying from the McCann apartment.

When pushed on this, and in one interview, Kate McCann then added to this  'but if they did (cry) it must have been for a short time, and they must just have fallen back to sleep again very quickly'   (will look out the exact quote)   She said they were checking so regularly on the children, and this accounted for her saying, if the children cried it could have been but for a short period of time.

They didn't want anyone to think of their children as crying, alone, abandoned.  They were prepared to accept the consequences abandoning their children in an unlocked holiday apartment would bring but not crying children, that would make the situation more horrifying, a negligent step too far- that is as far as criticism by the public, condemnation of their cruel actions - and they were not so keen to be charged by police for neglect, hence their hasty involvement of solicitors, who they claim instructed them that they had behaved 'within the bounds of responsible parenting.'

Gerry McCann, when questioned in this regard, leaving his children alone, their crying, he visibly squirms. He knows he has to stick to this story, of abandoning his children in an unlocked holiday apartment, but at the same time, it is clear he hates having to. He doesn't like to be thought of as this irresponsible dad.   Kate McCann?   Half the time it seems she doesn't know what planet she's on!

So whatever happened to Madeleine is something I would say so awful, that they felt they had no other choice but to put themselves in a position which McCann the man -doesn't like one bit, but has to grin and bear it!

But to truth and theories.

We know for sure a witness, a lady who lived in a flat above the apartment where the McCann family stayed during that holiday stated that she heard a child cry, call out for her daddy on one of the evenings the McCann family stayed in that apartment (May 1st 2007 I believe)  

McCanns desperately wanted their abduction story to be believed.  They want us to believe someone entered that apartment and 'stole the child from her bed'  (stolebeing Kate McCanns preferred word of choice) or as Kate McCann said 'from our bed.'

Madeleine I believe did cry.  I believe the witness in the apartment above was truthful.

Kate and Gerry McCann, much as they hate having to admit that their children did in fact cry in their absence, used 'crying'  to their advantage, to serve their purpose.

They suggested that an intruder entered their apartment, the night previous to Madeleine's disappearance (2nd May 2007) that the child had been disturbed by this (she and her baby brother) in so doing they planted the seed, that an intruder existed, bolstering their story of abduction.

So we have them, on one hand, saying that their children never cried in their absence, that the elderly lady in the apartment above could not possibly have heard their children crying, but on the other hand, for the purpose of their abduction tale, they will happily tell us of Madeleine and her baby brother having cried when alone in the dark unlocked apartment the night previous to the child being reported as missing.  They are happy to set a scene, laying foundations of a tale of abduction.   They want to impress upon us their tale of an intruder in the apartment on the night prior to Madeleine being removed, the importance of this.  

And yet at the same time they try to dismiss the importance, the relevance of such a statement  in respect of the fear their children must have experienced to be alone afraid and crying in an unlocked holiday apartment. They instantly dismiss this by saying, it was a passing remark by Madeleine, she dropped it, and moved on.  They want us to ignore this part, the part which any mother and father would have been concerned about that their children had been distressed and the significance of this.   Clearly they weren't as they went out again and left the kids.

They want us to accept that an intruder frightened their children causing them to cry, but also that it meant nothing, that Madeleine just bounced off, dropped it, not a care in the world, and by so doing exonerated them from all blame for their children's alleged distress!   They are a devious calculating pair!

Of course Kate McCann said it was with hindsight she thought of an  intruder on the previous night having made her children cry.   But the point is, she KNEW,  both parents did, on the morning of the night the child was reported as missing that their children (according to them had been alone, two of them, awake  afraid and crying.)  So why did they ignore this.

Of course too,  the elderly neighbour heard the children crying.  Of course the McCanns are talking nonsense when they say their children could not have cried because they checked so regularly. Their children could have cried the moment they left the apartment and they would not know.   If they were not there at all times with their children they cannot categorically state that their children did not wake at any time in their absence.

What the McCanns have done is use the evidence by the elderly witness who heard their children cry, not on the night Madeleine was reported as missing but on an entirely different night, and concocted their tale of an intruder perhaps being the cause of their children crying on the night of the 2nd May 2007, the night before Madeleine vanished.  They saw a way of spinning this to their advantage.

Just as there is a little truth in some of the statements the McCanns make, there can be elements of credibility in  even the most outrageous of theories, there can be factors which make us think again about matters pertaining to what is possible and what is not in this case.   An new set of eyes can sometimes see what has been previously missed.

Your theory that Madeleine was removed by someone who walked a distance to a waiting car is as possible as any other.  

What we do know is that someone removed this child from the apartment, and that someone either walked whatever distance, be it to a waiting vehicle near or far...or to a boat perhaps.

The two things we know with absolute certainty, facts in this case, is that Madeleine McCann is missing, in that she is not with her family where she should be if all was right with the world, and that her parents and their holiday companions have not been entirely truthful about what happened on that vacation.
11th March 2014
Website Builder