Stand to be corrected but not one single person ( I mean an indepenedent witness with no reason to lie ) has ever been produced to say the little girl was even in the apartment that night.

Geery McCann has never been asked what he meant when he showed a lack of any self control in swearing I am not here for a f***ing good time infront of other children on the bus that picked them up from the airport at the start of their holiday.

akabula 06 Oct 14 21:53

The fact is it was a situation which she entirely created herself. 

"How do you arrive at that conclusion HD2?
She made comments that can be found on any forum, chat room "

Agree, and most of her comments she didn't say anything that wasn't true, and she said things about the McCanns which a lot of people were thinking anyway. BUT tweeting her messages 4,220 times was taking it to a different level.  So what happened with the reporter and being exposed on TV........ she couldn't cope with the consequences. It was a situation she entirely created herself.

Katie Hopkins has poked her oar in...and some people aren't happy?
Seems it's not only Chit Chatters wanting answers...

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/newspaper-columnist-refuses-to-back-down-after-negligen#.VDK-jvinGxI.facebook

She could have been removed that morning or even the night before.


the timesheet of the kids club says she left there on 3rd may, 5:30pm, the day she disappeared http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01-pages-107-111[105-109]/processopdf01page107-CrecheRecords3.jpg

police were alerted of her disappearance after 10

agreed akabula. In fact the old bill should be interviewing her as a suspect. She says "we're coming for you."

How do you know the creche weren't lying?? Maybe she never even got to the apartment.

^ Exactly.

He just can't help himself.

naydam    07 Oct 14 15:37 
Scandinavian_Haven. Can you please stop bringing facts into the debate...it confuses the theorists!

Did you know about the creche times before they were posted.

I think not.

scandanavian_haven 07 Oct 14 11:11 
....
You do realise it was the McCanns who asked for the sniffer dogs to be used in the first place, hardly a sign of guilt
....


Just to clarify about the dogs ... the dogs that Gerry was keen to be brought in were the search and rescue/tracker dogs. This was done in the week after the disappearance using portugese dogs and handlers. These dogs are used to track the movements of missing persons - you give them the scent of the person from an item of theirs such as clothing and the dogs track that (and only that). Tracker dogs go hand in hand with the abduction theory - one reason why Gerry wanted them deployed

Not to be confused with the cadaver dog and blood detection dog deployed months later. These were the dogs and handler flown in from the UK. Gerry definitely wasn't asking for those dogs

I see that nobody has informed me what Katie Thingy was going on about. Shall I hold my breath a little longer?

naydam,

for somebody so concerned about facts you seem to have bought the idea that the child was abducted as promoted by the McCanns and their supporters although there is zero independent evidence to substantiate this.

How so Wesdaq. I haven't bought any idea about what happened. I haven't yet ruled out the theory that she wasn't killed OR abducted. She could have awoken and wandered off on her own. Less likely than the other two theories.
There is pretty much zero evidence to support anything. I would guess though, that there may well be clues or lines of investigation that are not disclosed to the public. That's just a guess, though. Maybe there is no verifiable evidence as yet.

The only answer can be is that you buy in to the abduction story.

"
@HD2 So you think posting the truth, no matter how often, entitles her to be door stepped in the fashion she was?"

The woman was probably more foolish than malicious in posting the truth but 4,220 tweets was a lot, while the journalist was just malicious. And no I don't think she should have been door stepped in the fashion she was.

Wesdaq. I feel empathy for the parents that's the kind of fella that I am. IF it should later transpire that evil goings-on have been going on I would, quite naturally I think, find myself a little less sympathetic.
I feel empathy for two parents who have to live with the loss of their child. I feel empathy for the targets of (apparently) huge amounts of 'trolling'. And I feel empathy for the way that these events must have adversely impacted upon their other children, probably until the day they die. They have been deprived of what should have been the happiest, most carefree years of their lives.
I feel empathy for two people who have been demonised for protecting themselves against unproven, libellous slurs that are presented as fact. And finally I feel empathy for two people who generally seem to be rather glum.

Regarding my use of the word 'negligent': I am not sure of the precise meaning of this word so perhaps I should have said 'neglectful'. I refer, of course, to them leaving their children unattended. Something which they constantly regret, I would think.

So, what did that Katie woman mean? Or am I the only one who responds to questions? Anybody?

So she gets door stepped but they can't named the bank or fella who messed around with the libor.

This isn't about the McCanns trying to get peoples sympathy - if people can only feel sorry for them if they break down in public this is a pretty awful society - I'm with Naydam, the default setting should be to sympathise with parents who have lost their child, regardless of whether their conduct was contributory

I think people are not against them because they don't cry but because at no stage have they shown the slightest sign of guilt at leaving their children within 14 hours of Maddie asking where here parents were the night before and saying that the children were crying.

There is also no evidence at all to say that she was abducted.
There is also a class situation as well as many have said before if they were a family on benefits then they would have been set upon a being terrible parents.

Kate and Gerry deserve sympathy but it was their initial actions that meant they are in this position.

tobermory you are very unbalanced on this.

There is no body and completely leaves the theory on abduction open.

It's not up to you decide their guilt, it's up to a judge and jury, they are innocent until a court says otherwise. They are unlikely to be arrested now.

Explain how they could have disposed of a body within 3-4 hours of her supposedly dying with her never being found too, and then have the world and it's wife looking for her with no luck, not even a £1.5 million pound reward offer helped. The more you think of that the more implausible it seems.

I'm unbalanced on stuff like creation v evolution too , when the evidence is all one way it's hard to keep your mind completely open on a subject.

I'm not 'deciding their guilt' in a legal sense .They are 'innocent until a court says otherwise ' yes , but that just means they cannot be subject to the penalties of the law  , not that they can't ever be questioned about their actions/statements .

Accepting they only had 3-4 hrs to do it that night means you are accepting their timeline , if they did it they will obviously supply a timeline that seemingly makes it inconceivable . As Taxi and others said , only their word (and their dubious friends , who contradicted themselves many times ) that Madeleine was still in the apartment when they went to the restaraunt .