If Kate's concerns were about managing the three children then it doesn't seem as if Gerry shared her concerns because according to Fiona he was very keen to go on the holiday to Portugal.
Gerry doesn't seem to let the kids get in the way of his social activites though, so he probably wouldn't be worried about that aspect. I wonder if it caused rows between them - I'd be pretty miffed if Mr Ellis was out playing tennis at all hours, while I tried to see to my three on my own.
Yeah, but frisky - that's the translated version ;)
So do we know what was actually said in Portuguese? And it's translated by a Portuguese speaking person - are we saying he got it wrong? Anything else he might have got wrong in his translations?
You have to put that in context of what he said in the Final Dispatch and also the fact he didn't want to answer Duarte's question until the judge intervened. No way is it literally 50/50.
Then why say 50/50? Why not just say in his opinion it's more likely she is dead? And why didn't he want to answer Duarte's Q?
If by 'chain of events' you mean a reconstruction then not only would 'an investigating force' expect the parents to co-operate, I should imagine any sane person might assume said parents would bend over backwards to aid the investigation.
I doubt if I'll ever be able to reconcile the fact that they failed to do so.
What always surprised me was the fact that the PJ weren't in a position to force them to co-operate with a reconstruction. Presumably this is where Pinochet's extradition specialist would have stepped in.
I suppose he was only interested in the facts- that the parents remain suspects as far as the PJ are concerned.
Which reminds me that I'm still waiting on an answer (from anyone, not singling you out EEA) on how we match up what Amaral claims with what was in the Archiving Dispatch (no evidence of any crime by any of the arguidos).
Why if the McCanns are still suspects in a shelved case (not a closed one) were they released from arguido status?
There is no acceptable reason why they would not do this. They were under suspicion, they supposedly knew themselves to be telling the truth and their child was missing and needed to have the investigation back on track. They needed to eliminate themselves from the enquiries yet they chose not to. Why?
As far as I can see there are several possibilities.
1. They lied/exaggerated the checking procedure and knew a reconstruction would expose this. Which would mean that avoiding getting charged with wasting police time/negligence was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
2. They were angry about the police's attitude towards them. Which would mean their own pride and the need to show the police who's boss was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
3. They didn't think the police would believe them. Which suggests they must have thought their own story had a number of implausible holes in it, and that avoiding the awkwardness of explaining these was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
4. They didn't need to worry about Madeleine because they knew she was already dead.
A neat summary. I would be interested in a pro-Mccann position on this. There really doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for their refusal to co-operate that isn't motivated by self-interest.
They go through all the IVF, and then don't seem to enjoy their children. What a strange pair.
Three children in such a short space of time is very stressful, and it doesn't seem to me that Gerry is particularly supportive with the kids. I wonder if Kate's confidence in looking after them herself was pretty low. It just seems a shame that they didnt use holiday time as a chance to spend some time with the children properly
A neat summary. I would be interested in a pro-Mccann position on this. There really doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for their refusal to co-operate that isn't motivated by self-interest.
And given that they have a tendency to put their own interests ahead of their children's, are they really the right people to be sending cheques to on Madeleine's behalf?
A neat summary. I would be interested in a pro-Mccann position on this. There really doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for their refusal to co-operate that isn't motivated by self-interest.
I know it's only a tag-line but their non-cooperation flies in the face of "Leave No Stone Unturned ".
A neat summary. I would be interested in a pro-Mccann position on this. There really doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for their refusal to co-operate that isn't motivated by self-interest.
One pro-McCann answer I read was "everything was set out in the statements therefore a reconstruction wasn't needed" or words to that effect.
Not sure if someone posted that on here or somewhere else.
And given that they have a tendency to put their own interests ahead of their children's, are they really the right people to be sending cheques to on Madeleine's behalf?
Well, Goncarlo Amaral's lawyer donated 10 Euros and he says he feels "cheated".
My feeling is that the police were pretty certain that there had been no abduction, and that the child had probably died in the apartment ( as the dogs had indicated )
With no conclusive evidence to ensure conviction, and with a complete lack of co-operation from the tapas group, they really had little choice but to shelve the case. ( the alternative was to go on endlessly wasting resources, chasing 'sightings' all over the world )
If the police had thought there was any chance of a paedophile abductor being on the loose, then I really don't think they would have closed the file.
As I say, it's all a matter of perception.
And yet the archiving dispatch says :
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
They simply do not know what happened as the evidence did not support any theory. All options are still on the table until new evidence can point it in another direction and reopen the case.
Three children in such a short space of time is very stressful, and it doesn't seem to me that Gerry is particularly supportive with the kids. I wonder if Kate's confidence in looking after them herself was pretty low. It just seems a shame that they didnt use holiday time as a chance to spend some time with the children properly
I believe you've made a very good point there sofieellis.
Three children in such a short space of time is very stressful, and it doesn't seem to me that Gerry is particularly supportive with the kids. I wonder if Kate's confidence in looking after them herself was pretty low. It just seems a shame that they didnt use holiday time as a chance to spend some time with the children properly
I agree, but most of the time the children were in the creche,so it wasn't as if she didn't have time for herself.
And she was always out running.
And as a doctor , she would have known, or indeed as any parent knows , 3 children are stressful.Why go for IVF so quickly again.?
And they were never with them at night, so it was almost that they were on holiday alone.
How long did they spend with the children , maybe 3 hours a day,if that.
One pro-McCann answer I read was "everything was set out in the statements therefore a reconstruction wasn't needed" or words to that effect.
Not sure if someone posted that on here or somewhere else.
That's not a reason not to do it if the police searching for your child think it will help them understand the circumstances in which she went missing and help them to progress, though, is it? It's more of an excuse not to, because for your own reasons you don't want to do it - which brings us back to why not?
Let's face it, the Pope was already aware of Madeleine's disappearance, but that didn't stop them dashing off to Rome for their blessing/absolution/whatever it was.
It's only 'good' if it's carried through, otherwise it looks rather empty and worthless.
What I had in mind when I wrote that was the "defect" in Madeleine's eye which was described as a good marketing ploy.
I have been doing a bit of investigating since I read that someone (Kate Healy - not sure if it meant Kate McCann or Susan Healy, Kate's mother) said of the eye defect (columba) that it was hardly visible.
On several official descriptions of Madeleine I have read that she had a "brown spot on her iris" and I am now wondering if the columba as depicted in photos (I know they were admittedly photoshopped to exaggerate the defect) even existed or was it just a "brown spot on her iris"?
In other words, did the columba even exist in the way it was portrayed?
"whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide"
Wasn't 'homicide' the word used by the profiler, Lee Rainbow?
They simply do not know what happened as the evidence did not support any theory. All options are still on the table until new evidence can point it in another direction and reopen the case.
What do you have in mind Frisky? 'Another direction' to the ones already mentioned in the dispatch?
Three children in such a short space of time is very stressful, and it doesn't seem to me that Gerry is particularly supportive with the kids. I wonder if Kate's confidence in looking after them herself was pretty low. It just seems a shame that they didnt use holiday time as a chance to spend some time with the children properly
The article in Vanity Fair was quite revealing about the times when Kate was carrying. Apparently, with the twins she was quite ill and in bed for most of the time.
Bearing in mind that Madeleine herself would only be what? 18 months? at the time that is quite a chunk of her young toddership for which she would be under the care of someone other than her mother.
That family, however, took years to materialize. There were two rounds of in-vitro fertilization, culminating in Madeleine: “As close to a perfect child as you can get,” says Gerry. Less than two years later another round resulted in the twins—born after a very difficult pregnancy, during which, Philomena says, Kate was confined to her bed for months and almost lost them.
I agree, but most of the time the children were in the creche,so it wasn't as if she didn't have time for herself.
And she was always out running.
And as a doctor , she would have known, or indeed as any parent knows , 3 children are stressful.Why go for IVF so quickly again.?
And they were never with them at night, so it was almost that they were on holiday alone.
How long did they spend with the children , maybe 3 hours a day,if that.
I'm just wondering if those hours were fun hours or fraught hours, that's all.
Comments
Gerry doesn't seem to let the kids get in the way of his social activites though, so he probably wouldn't be worried about that aspect. I wonder if it caused rows between them - I'd be pretty miffed if Mr Ellis was out playing tennis at all hours, while I tried to see to my three on my own.
Then why say 50/50? Why not just say in his opinion it's more likely she is dead? And why didn't he want to answer Duarte's Q?
What always surprised me was the fact that the PJ weren't in a position to force them to co-operate with a reconstruction. Presumably this is where Pinochet's extradition specialist would have stepped in.
Why if the McCanns are still suspects in a shelved case (not a closed one) were they released from arguido status?
A neat summary. I would be interested in a pro-Mccann position on this. There really doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for their refusal to co-operate that isn't motivated by self-interest.
Three children in such a short space of time is very stressful, and it doesn't seem to me that Gerry is particularly supportive with the kids. I wonder if Kate's confidence in looking after them herself was pretty low. It just seems a shame that they didnt use holiday time as a chance to spend some time with the children properly
And given that they have a tendency to put their own interests ahead of their children's, are they really the right people to be sending cheques to on Madeleine's behalf?
I know it's only a tag-line but their non-cooperation flies in the face of "Leave No Stone Unturned ".
One pro-McCann answer I read was "everything was set out in the statements therefore a reconstruction wasn't needed" or words to that effect.
Not sure if someone posted that on here or somewhere else.
Well, Goncarlo Amaral's lawyer donated 10 Euros and he says he feels "cheated".
That's just a good marketing ploy, nothing more.
Perhaps he should sue.
And yet the archiving dispatch says :
They simply do not know what happened as the evidence did not support any theory. All options are still on the table until new evidence can point it in another direction and reopen the case.
I believe you've made a very good point there sofieellis.
It's only 'good' if it's carried through, otherwise it looks rather empty and worthless.
I agree, but most of the time the children were in the creche,so it wasn't as if she didn't have time for herself.
And she was always out running.
And as a doctor , she would have known, or indeed as any parent knows , 3 children are stressful.Why go for IVF so quickly again.?
And they were never with them at night, so it was almost that they were on holiday alone.
How long did they spend with the children , maybe 3 hours a day,if that.
I don't think there is any evidence as to what happend to Claudia Lawrence, but as far as I am aware her investigation is not shelved.
And I would be interested to hear her father on the subject if it was.
That's not a reason not to do it if the police searching for your child think it will help them understand the circumstances in which she went missing and help them to progress, though, is it? It's more of an excuse not to, because for your own reasons you don't want to do it - which brings us back to why not?
Let's face it, the Pope was already aware of Madeleine's disappearance, but that didn't stop them dashing off to Rome for their blessing/absolution/whatever it was.
According to the McCanns they should follow each and every sighting of a blonde girl. Needle and haystack spring to mind.
What I had in mind when I wrote that was the "defect" in Madeleine's eye which was described as a good marketing ploy.
I have been doing a bit of investigating since I read that someone (Kate Healy - not sure if it meant Kate McCann or Susan Healy, Kate's mother) said of the eye defect (columba) that it was hardly visible.
On several official descriptions of Madeleine I have read that she had a "brown spot on her iris" and I am now wondering if the columba as depicted in photos (I know they were admittedly photoshopped to exaggerate the defect) even existed or was it just a "brown spot on her iris"?
In other words, did the columba even exist in the way it was portrayed?
Wasn't 'homicide' the word used by the profiler, Lee Rainbow?
What do you have in mind Frisky? 'Another direction' to the ones already mentioned in the dispatch?
The article in Vanity Fair was quite revealing about the times when Kate was carrying. Apparently, with the twins she was quite ill and in bed for most of the time.
Bearing in mind that Madeleine herself would only be what? 18 months? at the time that is quite a chunk of her young toddership for which she would be under the care of someone other than her mother.
Vanity Fair
I'm just wondering if those hours were fun hours or fraught hours, that's all.