UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on June 16, 2019, 04:23:15 PM
-
We are told by Gerry, before the files were released, that he and his wife hadn’t been sure that they would get into the tapas bar on the night Madeleine disappeared, when we know from the files that a table had been booked for the group for the whole of the week at the beginning of the week. Further the fact that Kate supports her husband in this untruth and adds to it by claiming that they were thinking of going to the Millennium when there is no evidence that that was even considered surely makes her untrustworthy too ?
https://youtu.be/qFL6Jown0LE
-
Supporters thought please ?
-
Supporters thought please ?
How about a few cites for your claims?
-
Nobody ?
-
How about a few cites for your claims?
Now there's a thought.
-
Nobody ?
@)(++(*. You really do crack me up.
-
Now there's a thought.
Apologies. I forgot to put a link to the video Sadie posted earlier. I have now amended my post.
-
Apologies. I forgot to put a link to the video Sadie posted earlier. I have now amended my post.
Now can we have a link to the Tapas restaurant booking.
-
Now can we have a link to the Tapas restaurant booking.
he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30...upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings requested.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
-
he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30...upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings requested.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
Thank you. So we have three possibilities
Gerry lied
Gerry got hold of the wrong end of the stick about the booking for that day
There actually was some question mark about the booking for that night, which was subsequently resolved.
As the rest of the Tapas group and the Tapas staff would have known he was lying (if it was indeed a lie) I fail to see why he should risk doing so, especially as there was no clear advantage in him saying this.
-
he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30...upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings requested.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
Thank you G.
At the point Gerry made this claim he would have had no idea that the files would be made available to the general public.
-
Thank you G.
At the point Gerry made this claim he would have had no idea that the files would be made available to the general public.
But he would know that the police, his friends and the Tapas staff would have known he was lying, if that is indeed what he did.
-
Apologies. I forgot to put a link to the video Sadie posted earlier. I have now amended my post.
Sadie linked to that video for the simple reason she suspected it wasn't quite telling the whole story. It is actually incredibly simple to manipulate video using really basic editing tools ... and as technology progresses it becomes even simpler still.
How we got Emma Thompson to make a pro- Brexit speech
. . . thanks to chilling new video technology which can literally put words into someone’s mouth. So how long before we can’t trust ANYTHING we see online?
The Mail on Sunday16 Jun 2019By BEN LAZARUS
THE face is unmistakable even if the words coming out of her mouth would cause her politically correct friends to choke on their quinoa. ‘Do we have a plan for Brexit? We do,’ she appears to say. ‘Are we ready for the effort it will take to see it through? We are!’
Arch-luvvie Emma Thompson is known, of course, for being an ardent Remainer, having described Brexit as ‘madness’ and Britain as a ‘cake-filled, misery-laden grey old island’.
So this latest astonishing footage of the millionaire Labour supporter regurgitating a speech by Prime Minister Theresa May could come as something of a surprise.
But all is not as it seems. The remarkable clip is, in fact, a video commissioned by The Mail on Sunday to illustrate the more insidious powers of cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technology – which can now be used to create frighteningly realistic fake videos.
Known as ‘deepfakes’, they are so convincing – and salacious – that they can spread across social media in minutes, proving Winston Churchill right when the great wartime politician said that ‘a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on’.
________________________________________________________________
The chilling potential of the technology was illustrated to great effect last month when Donald Trump shared a clip on Twitter, apparently showing Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives, slurring, stumbling and repeating her words at a press conference. There was one problem: the video had been doctored to make her appear drunk and incoherent.
Technically, the Pelosi film was a ‘ shallowfake,’ made by simply speeding, slowing and altering the pitch of a real video of her speaking. Despite the crudeness of its production, the clip has been viewed millions of times on Facebook.
________________________________________________________________
Deepfakes, however, can make anyone appear to do or say anything. A perfect recent example was a clip of Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg which appeared online after the social media giant refused to take the Pelosi video down.
It showed a sinister-looking Zuckerberg gloating about his power and a made-up organisation called ‘Spectre’. ‘Imagine this for a second,’ the deepfake Zuckerberg says. ‘One man with total control of billions of people’s stolen data, all their secrets, their lives, their futures. I owe it all to Spectre. Spectre showed me that whoever controls the data, controls the future.’
Today, in an investigation that should terrify us all, The Mail on Sunday reveals just how easy it is to turn Emma Thompson from Remainer to Brexiteer with the technology. If we can no longer believe what we see, the implications are far-reaching not just for people like Thompson, Zuckerberg and Pelosi, but for democracy itself.
Making computer-generated images, known as CGIs, of real people is, of course, nothing new. A recent advert was spookily realistic, appearing to show Audrey Hepburn eating Galaxy chocolate while being driven along the Amalfi Coast.
The advert was created by technical wizards who applied state-of-the-art CGI computer graphics typically used by Hollywood to enhance old footage.
Deepfake technology, however, is different.
It uses AI, computer software that effectively ‘learns’ how to do complex tasks, to quickly and cheaply manipulate images fed into the machine and make them appear to do or say something else.
The Mail on Sunday commissioned a team at the University of Albany in New York to fuse a clip from several randomly chosen Emma Thompson videos and a Brexit speech made in March by the PM in which she called on MPs to back her Withdrawal Agreement. The software analysed the mouth movements of both women before generating the final clip.
Professor of Computer Science Siwei Lyu, at the University of Albany, who created the clip with student Yuezun Li, said: ‘To make these types of videos requires computer units that cost between $5,000 and $20,000 (£4,000 to £16,000).
‘There is no issue of accessibility to such technology, however, as there are plenty of services online where people make these videos on request. All you need to do is get high resolution images from YouTube and input them into the computer, which then generates the deepfake clip using algorithms.’
Prof Lyu said within five years, everyone could have access to the technology on their home computer, smartphone or tablet. ‘It will be doable in just a few hours,’ he said.
It is already advancing. At present, most deepfakes feature the apparent speaker lip-synced to someone else’s voice, often an impersonator. But soon, the technology will be able to deconstruct the various distinctive elements of any voice and put t hem back together to create phrases, or whole speeches that the original speaker has never uttered.
It could be used for nefarious domestic purposes, such as making someone look like they are having affairs or carrying out illegal activity. But of more concern is its ability to put words in the mouths of political leaders which could deliberately set out to spark widespread fear, hatred and panic.
For this reason, it is already being dubbed ‘the next generation of fake news’.
Digital expert Rafe Pil l i ng, who works as a senior security researcher at digital security firm Secureworks, said: ‘It is likely to be available to the mainstream within five years, as a computer program or an app.
‘It could be as easy as applying an Instagram or Snapchat filter [which alters faces, and can appear to swap genders] is today. As soon as the first consumer application comes out, it will rapidly become ubiquitous.’
Professor Anthony Glees, Director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, added: ‘The prospect of this is Orwellian, and then some.
‘It’s not just fake news, it’s giving out fake news in the images of people who we believe.’ Professor Glees is in no doubt what effect it could have.
‘This kind of Frankenstein technology will have a devastating impact on our politics,’ he said.
‘In the hands of an enemy that wants to sow discord and undermine our way of life – be it Russia, Iran, North Korea – the potential is terrifying. We’ve become used to treating words and images with caution, especially online, and lots of people see video footage as the only evidence they can trust.
‘As these deepfakes show us, in a few years even that will be gone.
‘The end result will be a collapse in the trust in political figures, which we need in order for our democracy to function.’
https://www.pressreader.com/
The future was with us if Lizzie Taylor and Joan Morais beau Levy, collaborated as I think they did, on which camera angle suited Eddie best.
-
Sadie linked to that video for the simple reason she suspected it wasn't quite telling the whole story. It is actually incredibly simple to manipulate video using really basic editing tools ... and as technology progresses it becomes even simpler still.
How we got Emma Thompson to make a pro- Brexit speech
. . . thanks to chilling new video technology which can literally put words into someone’s mouth. So how long before we can’t trust ANYTHING we see online?
The Mail on Sunday16 Jun 2019By BEN LAZARUS
THE face is unmistakable even if the words coming out of her mouth would cause her politically correct friends to choke on their quinoa. ‘Do we have a plan for Brexit? We do,’ she appears to say. ‘Are we ready for the effort it will take to see it through? We are!’
Arch-luvvie Emma Thompson is known, of course, for being an ardent Remainer, having described Brexit as ‘madness’ and Britain as a ‘cake-filled, misery-laden grey old island’.
So this latest astonishing footage of the millionaire Labour supporter regurgitating a speech by Prime Minister Theresa May could come as something of a surprise.
But all is not as it seems. The remarkable clip is, in fact, a video commissioned by The Mail on Sunday to illustrate the more insidious powers of cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technology – which can now be used to create frighteningly realistic fake videos.
Known as ‘deepfakes’, they are so convincing – and salacious – that they can spread across social media in minutes, proving Winston Churchill right when the great wartime politician said that ‘a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on’.
________________________________________________________________
The chilling potential of the technology was illustrated to great effect last month when Donald Trump shared a clip on Twitter, apparently showing Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives, slurring, stumbling and repeating her words at a press conference. There was one problem: the video had been doctored to make her appear drunk and incoherent.
Technically, the Pelosi film was a ‘ shallowfake,’ made by simply speeding, slowing and altering the pitch of a real video of her speaking. Despite the crudeness of its production, the clip has been viewed millions of times on Facebook.
________________________________________________________________
Deepfakes, however, can make anyone appear to do or say anything. A perfect recent example was a clip of Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg which appeared online after the social media giant refused to take the Pelosi video down.
It showed a sinister-looking Zuckerberg gloating about his power and a made-up organisation called ‘Spectre’. ‘Imagine this for a second,’ the deepfake Zuckerberg says. ‘One man with total control of billions of people’s stolen data, all their secrets, their lives, their futures. I owe it all to Spectre. Spectre showed me that whoever controls the data, controls the future.’
Today, in an investigation that should terrify us all, The Mail on Sunday reveals just how easy it is to turn Emma Thompson from Remainer to Brexiteer with the technology. If we can no longer believe what we see, the implications are far-reaching not just for people like Thompson, Zuckerberg and Pelosi, but for democracy itself.
Making computer-generated images, known as CGIs, of real people is, of course, nothing new. A recent advert was spookily realistic, appearing to show Audrey Hepburn eating Galaxy chocolate while being driven along the Amalfi Coast.
The advert was created by technical wizards who applied state-of-the-art CGI computer graphics typically used by Hollywood to enhance old footage.
Deepfake technology, however, is different.
It uses AI, computer software that effectively ‘learns’ how to do complex tasks, to quickly and cheaply manipulate images fed into the machine and make them appear to do or say something else.
The Mail on Sunday commissioned a team at the University of Albany in New York to fuse a clip from several randomly chosen Emma Thompson videos and a Brexit speech made in March by the PM in which she called on MPs to back her Withdrawal Agreement. The software analysed the mouth movements of both women before generating the final clip.
Professor of Computer Science Siwei Lyu, at the University of Albany, who created the clip with student Yuezun Li, said: ‘To make these types of videos requires computer units that cost between $5,000 and $20,000 (£4,000 to £16,000).
‘There is no issue of accessibility to such technology, however, as there are plenty of services online where people make these videos on request. All you need to do is get high resolution images from YouTube and input them into the computer, which then generates the deepfake clip using algorithms.’
Prof Lyu said within five years, everyone could have access to the technology on their home computer, smartphone or tablet. ‘It will be doable in just a few hours,’ he said.
It is already advancing. At present, most deepfakes feature the apparent speaker lip-synced to someone else’s voice, often an impersonator. But soon, the technology will be able to deconstruct the various distinctive elements of any voice and put t hem back together to create phrases, or whole speeches that the original speaker has never uttered.
It could be used for nefarious domestic purposes, such as making someone look like they are having affairs or carrying out illegal activity. But of more concern is its ability to put words in the mouths of political leaders which could deliberately set out to spark widespread fear, hatred and panic.
For this reason, it is already being dubbed ‘the next generation of fake news’.
Digital expert Rafe Pil l i ng, who works as a senior security researcher at digital security firm Secureworks, said: ‘It is likely to be available to the mainstream within five years, as a computer program or an app.
‘It could be as easy as applying an Instagram or Snapchat filter [which alters faces, and can appear to swap genders] is today. As soon as the first consumer application comes out, it will rapidly become ubiquitous.’
Professor Anthony Glees, Director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, added: ‘The prospect of this is Orwellian, and then some.
‘It’s not just fake news, it’s giving out fake news in the images of people who we believe.’ Professor Glees is in no doubt what effect it could have.
‘This kind of Frankenstein technology will have a devastating impact on our politics,’ he said.
‘In the hands of an enemy that wants to sow discord and undermine our way of life – be it Russia, Iran, North Korea – the potential is terrifying. We’ve become used to treating words and images with caution, especially online, and lots of people see video footage as the only evidence they can trust.
‘As these deepfakes show us, in a few years even that will be gone.
‘The end result will be a collapse in the trust in political figures, which we need in order for our democracy to function.’
https://www.pressreader.com/
The future was with us if Lizzie Taylor and Joan Morais beau Levy, collaborated as I think they did, on which camera angle suited Eddie best.
Are you honestly trying to convince members that the video is not genuine ? That those are not Gerry or Kate’s words ?
-
Are you honestly trying to convince members that the video is not genuine ? That those are not Gerry or Kate’s words ?
I have illustrated that it is possible to manipulate video as it always was ... but CGI seamlessly now. Members can consider the information how they will.
-
I'm new to the case but have recently listened to some youtube vids/documentaries and read some of KM's book.
P. 91/92 of KM's book she states when GM did his 9.05 check he noticed the door further ajar than he left it. As such he first entered the bedroom he shared with KM to see if MM had entered their bed as she was prone to do if she woke in the small hours. She wasn't there. GM proceeded to the children's room where he found MM exactly as he had last seen her. He then had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful she looked.
KM did her check at 10pm. As she entered 5a via the patio (she makes a point of telling us this is how GM and MO also entered) she paused for a few seconds to listen and all was silent. She also noticed the door to the children's room was also open wider than GM left if (how would she know how GM left it at 8.30pm when he did the check before they left?) she assumed this was how Matt left it. She then went and gently began to pull it to (why bother unless she suffers OCD) and suddenly it slammed shut as if caught by a draught (when it was in her hand!?). A little surprised she turned to see if she left the patio doors open and let in a breeze. Retracing her steps she confirmed she hadn't. Returning to the children's room, she opened the door a little and as she did she glanced over at MM's bed. She couldn't quite make her out in the dark. She looked at it for what was probably only a few seconds, though it felt much longer. She didn't switch the light on straight away through force of habit taking care to avoid waking the children at all costs. When she realised MM wasn't there...
And the diagram in her book P63 shows the children's bedroom door opening the wrong way hence MO was unable to observe MM when he did his check.
- If GM had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful MM looked how come KM struggled to even determine whether or not MM was in the bed!?
My initial thoughts on this case are that the whole parent checking thing needs putting under the microscope. Were they checking as frequently as they said? Were they actually entering the apartment as they claim or one or both simply walking round the front and listening at the children's window? If GM was doing the latter this means MM's disappearance could have taken place from any time between 8.30pm and 10.00pm!?
If GM was checking every 30 mins from Sun eve to Thu eve why the proud parent moment on the last check which he felt the need to share with the world and its dog!?
-
I'm new to the case but have recently listened to some youtube vids/documentaries and read some of KM's book.
P. 91/92 of KM's book she states when GM did his 9.05 check he noticed the door further ajar than he left it. As such he first entered the bedroom he shared with KM to see if MM had entered their bed as she was prone to do if she woke in the small hours. She wasn't there. GM proceeded to the children's room where he had found MM exactly as he had last seen her. He then had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful she looked.
KM did her check at 10pm. As she entered 5a via the patio (she makes a point of telling us this is how GM and MO also entered) she paused for a few seconds to listen and all was silent. She also noticed the door to the children's room was also open wider than GM left if (how would she know how GM left it at 8.30pm when he did the check before they left?) she assumed this was how Matt left it. She then went and gently began to pull it to (why bother unless she suffers OCD) and suddenly it slammed shut as if caught by a draught (when it was in her hand!?). A little surprised she turned to see if she left the patio doors open and let in a breeze. Retracing her steps she confirmed she hadn't. Returning to the children's room, she opened the door a little and as she did she glanced over at MM's bed. She couldn't quite make her out in the dark. She looked at it for what was probably only a few seconds, though it felt much longer. She didn't switch the light on straight away through force of habit taking care to avoid waking the children at all costs. When she realised MM wasn't there...
And the diagram in her book P63 shows the children's bedroom door opening the wrong way hence MO was unable to observe MM when he did his check.
- If GM had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful MM looked how come KM struggled to even determine whether or not MM was in the bed!?
My initial thoughts on this case are that the whole parent checking thing needs putting under the microscope. Were they checking as frequently as they said? Were they actually entering the apartment as they claim or one or both simply walking round the back and listening at the children's window? If GM was doing the latter this means MM's disappearance could have taken place from any time between 8.30pm and 10.00pm!?
If GM was checking every 30 mins from Sun eve to Thu eve why the proud parent moment on the last check which he felt the need to share with the world and its dog!?
Erm, probably because it was the last time he ever saw his daughter!
-
Erm, probably because it was the last time he ever saw his daughter!
He had those thoughts at his 9pm ish check and was recollecting them thereafter and sharing them with the world. At 9pm ish he could not possibly have known it was the last time he was going to see his daughter.
-
I have illustrated that it is possible to manipulate video as it always was ... but CGI seamlessly now. Members can consider the information how they will.
Do you think that the video’s been altered ?
-
He had those thoughts at his 9pm ish check and was recollecting them thereafter and sharing them with the world. At 9pm ish he could not possibly have known it was the last time he was going to see his daughter.
And we would never have been privy to those thoughts had she not disappeared. Do you think it odd that parents have fond thoughts about their children as they look at them sleeping?
-
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id453.htm
Gerry said: "I think the worst thing is we kind of almost thought about not going. And er, and did. We weren’t sure we were going to get into the tapas, remember, and…"
Kate said: "In fact we were all, we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, it was just because the walk was so long and we didn’t have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought we were, you know we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night”
-
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id453.htm
Gerry said: "I think the worst thing is we kind of almost thought about not going. And er, and did. We weren’t sure we were going to get into the tapas, remember, and…"
Kate said: "In fact we were all, we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, it was just because the walk was so long and we didn’t have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought we were, you know we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night”
How would you prove they never talked about it?
-
Some confirmation of what was said in that video clip.
The parents of Madeleine McCann have told how it was only a last-minute change of plan that led them to leave their children alone on the night their daughter disappeared.
Kate and Gerry McCann said that they had planned to take the family to The Millennium, a restaurant half a mile away. But because Madeleine and their twins, Sean and Amelie, were tired they decided to put them to bed and eat at the tapas restaurant near their apartment.
...The couple speak about their change of heart during a two-hour documentary, Madeleine, One Year On, Campaign for Change to be televised tonight.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1908158/Madeleine-McCann-left-alone-as-last-minute-decision.html
-
Fact..Gerry said that they weren’t sure that they’d get into the tapas bar that night...the files show us that the group had booked a table for every night that week...ergo, he lied.
Why he lied is opinion.....that he lied is not.
-
Fact..Gerry said that they weren’t sure that they’d get into the tapas bar that night...the files show us that the group had booked a table for every night that week...ergo, he lied.
Why he lied is opinion.....that he lied is not.
A gross assumption on your part.
-
Do you think that the video’s been altered ?
Did I say I did?
-
And we would never have been privy to those thoughts had she not disappeared. Do you think it odd that parents have fond thoughts about their children as they look at them sleeping?
I always had fond thoughts of mine and still gaze with wonder and awe at the new crop of babies making their presence felt in the family.
-
How would you prove they never talked about it?
And whether they did or not Rob what difference does it make to anything? I find the latest fad regarding this rather bemusing ... I thought the bottom of the barrel had been scraped through some time since.
-
I always had fond thoughts of mine and still gaze with wonder and awe at the new crop of babies making their presence felt in the family.
What annoys me to some degree is that Gerry always tries to be the hero in Madeleine's disappearance.
When has he cried? Then he wants us to accept that he had some special spiritual moment just prior to her disappearing. I find that so annoying TBH.
-
Did I say I did?
That’s what I’m trying to ascertain, though you seem reluctant to answer.
-
Fact..Gerry said that they weren’t sure that they’d get into the tapas bar that night...the files show us that the group had booked a table for every night that week...ergo, he lied.
Why he lied is opinion.....that he lied is not.
I was mulling over the degree of libel there ... but really who cares about the mind boggling nonsense of it all.
There is a girl out there who has been missing for twelve years and there have been two full scale investigations into that by two national police forces for more than half of that time ... and this is the best sceptics can come up with for discussion?
-
And whether they did or not Rob what difference does it make to anything? I find the latest fad regarding this rather bemusing ... I thought the bottom of the barrel had been scraped through some time since.
If Gerry lied then it makes a great difference, not least to his credibility.
-
That’s what I’m trying to ascertain, though you seem reluctant to answer.
I think what Gerry was saying is a fact. There is the little raising of the eyebrows as confirmation by Kate as Gerry talks.
If Gerry lied then it makes a great difference, not least to his credibility.
To me he was telling the truth.
-
I was mulling over the degree of libel there ... but really who cares about the mind boggling nonsense of it all.
There is a girl out there who has been missing for twelve years and there have been two full scale investigations into that by two national police forces for more than half of that time ... and this is the best sceptics can come up with for discussion?
There is no libel, truth is an absolute defence.
-
There is no libel, truth is an absolute defence.
Prove Gerry lied. You can’t. The end.
-
If Gerry lied then it makes a great difference, not least to his credibility.
His credibility was always in question in your eyes, but in the eyes of the people who matter his credibility will not be affected by this incredibly nit-picking non-issue.
-
I always had fond thoughts of mine and still gaze with wonder and awe at the new crop of babies making their presence felt in the family.
There is/was a challenge about the best post of the day on here somewhere.
I reckon you have just won today's title.
'new crop of babies'
I like that. l like that a lot!
&^^&*
-
How would you prove they never talked about it?
"we were all going to go up to the Nillennium" said Kate. Not one of the other seven mebtioned that imo.
-
What annoys me to some degree is that Gerry always tries to be the hero in Madeleine's disappearance.
When has he cried? Then he wants us to accept that he had some special spiritual moment just prior to her disappearing. I find that so annoying TBH.
I have recently reread Fiona Payne's rogatory statement and nothing could be further from the truth. Bear in mind this is the man whose emotions were so shattered that he collapsed to the ground in despair ... to be caricatured as a 'praying Arab' by one very insensitive man.
-
And we would never have been privy to those thoughts had she not disappeared. Do you think it odd that parents have fond thoughts about their children as they look at them sleeping?
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. The point I am attempting to point is when GM looked at MM circa 9ish he thought how beautiful MM looked and by his own admission and with the benefit of hindsight it was rather ironic that this was the last time he viewed MM!
But was this the last time he viewed MM or was it 8.30 when he left for the tapas bar? Was he actually going into the apartment, as he claims, or simply walking round the front and listening at the window? Is all the elaboration about how beautiful MM looked to simply assuage any guilt and/or an attempt to make him look less irresponsible.
How could he see MM when according to KM she could not even determine whether or not MM was in the bed when the light was off?
-
If Gerry lied then it makes a great difference, not least to his credibility.
The Portuguese courts have decreed Amaral a criminal liar ... doesn't appear to have dented his street cred in some quarters.
-
"we were all going to go up to the Nillennium" said Kate. Not one of the other seven mebtioned that imo.
Those lies being exposed certainly explains Kate’s flushed state on archiving day.
-
The Portuguese courts have decreed Amaral a criminal liar ... doesn't appear to have dented his street cred in some quarters.
But it has with you...surely Gerry’s credibility should suffer the same fate.
-
"we were all going to go up to the Nillennium" said Kate. Not one of the other seven mebtioned that imo.
Fleeting thought, of all going to the Millennium, but it didn't happen. To me it confirms to me that Silvia did try and get the Tapas 9 to stop leaving the kids alone in the rooms. Silvia might have read them the riot act and they all thought "let's stop this by going to the Millennium", but the cure would have been worse than the disease. It was difficult to take the kids to the Millennium.
-
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. The point I am attempting to point is when GM looked at MM circa 9ish he thought how beautiful MM looked and by his own admission and with the benefit of hindsight it was rather ironic that this was the last time he viewed MM!
But was this the last time he viewed MM or was it 8.30 when he left for the tapas bar? Was he actually going into the apartment, as he claims, or simply walking round the front and listening at the window? Is all the elaboration about how beautiful MM looked to simply assuage any guilt and/or an attempt to make him look less irresponsible.
How could he see MM when according to KM she could not even determine whether or not MM was in the bed when the light was off?
He would hardly pee in the front passageway. He used the toilet when he was in the apartment.
-
I always had fond thoughts of mine and still gaze with wonder and awe at the new crop of babies making their presence felt in the family.
You say gaze with wonder but Kate tells us without the light on she could not even determine whether MM was in her bed or not and yet GM can see her clearly enough without the light on to have a proud parent moment as to how beautiful she looked. Page 92 KM's book
I assume most of the regulars here have read KM's book?
-
But it has with you...surely Gerry’s credibility should suffer the same fate.
Amaral had a criminal conviction for perjury. Remind me ??? Who else has one?
-
He would hardly pee in the front passageway. He used the toilet when he was in the apartment.
Why not? How do you know he used the loo?
-
Fleeting thought, of all going to the Millennium, but it didn't happen. To me it confirms to me that Silvia did try and get the Tapas 9 to stop leaving the kids alone in the rooms. Silvia might have read them the riot act and they all thought "let's stop this by going to the Millennium", but the cure would have been worse than the disease. It was difficult to take the kids to the Millennium.
I doubt Silvia hardly knew of their existence before Madeleine vanished.
-
How would you prove they never talked about it?
Men's tennis was that night and by the time that was over it was kids bedtime so the Millennium is out of the question!
‘We all went to the Millennium Restaurant that evening, it was a ten minute walk, this was around half six to seven’, probably, I don’t know whether we discussed the times, it was probably, maybe six to six thirty for a start." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
-
You say gaze with wonder but Kate tells us without the light on she could not even determine whether MM was in her bed or not and yet GM can see her clearly enough without the light on to have a proud parent moment as to how beautiful she looked. Page 92 KM's book
I assume most of the regulars here have read KM's book?
Have you noted the time difference between the visits? Portugal isn't in perpetual darkness as far as I know and there has been a lot of discussion on the forum regarding that very point.
-
Why not? How do you know he used the loo?
Because he said so.
-
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. The point I am attempting to point is when GM looked at MM circa 9ish he thought how beautiful MM looked and by his own admission and with the benefit of hindsight it was rather ironic that this was the last time he viewed MM!
But was this the last time he viewed MM or was it 8.30 when he left for the tapas bar? Was he actually going into the apartment, as he claims, or simply walking round the front and listening at the window? Is all the elaboration about how beautiful MM looked to simply assuage any guilt and/or an attempt to make him look less irresponsible.
How could he see MM when according to KM she could not even determine whether or not MM was in the bed when the light was off?
That bedroom got lighter and darker depending on who was speaking. To be fair, it wasn't all that dark at 9:05. On the other hand the proud father moment took a while to be spoken of.
The problem with the checking is that no independent witnesses saw any of them apart from Jez Wilkins and he refused to be precise about the time he saw Gerry. Between 8:45 and 9:15 he said.
-
he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30...upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings requested.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
Odd that this statement mentions a man making the block booking when both Matt and Rachel say it was she who begged and pleaded for the block booking. Someone must be lying!
-
Have you noted the time difference between the visits? Portugal isn't in perpetual darkness as far as I know and there has been a lot of discussion on the forum regarding that very point.
It was dark when Matt checked and he could see into the room so how couldn't Kate from a closer position?
-
Amaral had a criminal conviction for perjury. Remind me ??? Who else has one?
As far as I can see the only difference is that Amaral lied in court, Gerry on film.
As my old granny used to say....you can trust a thief, you can’t trust a liar.
-
As an aside, is anyone else bothered by the greengrocer’s apostrophe in the thread title?
-
It was dark when Matt checked and he could see into the room so how couldn't Kate from a closer position?
Because it makes for a better narrative ?
-
Have you noted the time difference between the visits? Portugal isn't in perpetual darkness as far as I know and there has been a lot of discussion on the forum regarding that very point.
What difference would the time difference make in terms of light entering the room? GM and KM went out at 8.30. Page 90 KM's book she states the bedroom door was left open to allow a glimmer of light in from the lamp they left on in the lounge. The curtains and shutter in the children's room were closed.
-
As far as I can see the only difference is that Amaral lied in court, Gerry on film.
As my old granny used to say....you can trust a thief, you can’t trust a liar.
Amaral falsified evidence in a torture trial ...
I would neither trust a convicted thief or a convicted liar ... but maybe other grannies have different standards.
-
What difference would the time difference make in terms of light entering the room? GM and KM went out at 8.30. Page 90 KM's book she states the bedroom door was left open to allow a glimmer of light in from the lamp they left on in the lounge. The curtains and shutter in the children's room were closed.
"To be fair, it wasn't all that dark at 9:05." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10801.msg536947#msg536947
Darkness hadn't fallen at 8.30 when they left. But it was going to get dark and they prepared for that, as one does.
-
Amaral falsified evidence in a torture trial ...
I would neither trust a convicted thief or a convicted liar ... but maybe other grannies have different standards.
My granny certainly did...she didn’t see the standard of honesty one is prepared to tolerate as a pick and mix. The truth was the truth.
-
My granny certainly did...she didn’t see the standard of honesty one is prepared to tolerate as a pick and mix. The truth was the truth.
And a convicted perjurer is the thief of truth.
-
That bedroom got lighter and darker depending on who was speaking. To be fair, it wasn't all that dark at 9:05. On the other hand the proud father moment took a while to be spoken of.
The problem with the checking is that no independent witnesses saw any of them apart from Jez Wilkins and he refused to be precise about the time he saw Gerry. Between 8:45 and 9:15 he said.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5
But according to how the apartment was left ie lamp on in lounge and curtains/shutters closed in children's room I don't see how the outside light influenced anything internally?
The Paynes were on the first floor and had their own hi-tech baby monitor therefore they were not carrying out what to my mind was a bizarre checking arrangement. I don't know the layout of the apartments occupied by the Oldfields and Tanner/O'Brien but if they were similar to McCanns they may well have been walking around the front and listening at the shutters some of the time.
According to KM when GM stopped to speak with Jeremy Wilkins, who was pushing his child around in a buggy, GM discussed their "childcare arrangements". JM was someone GM had known over a matter of days through tennis. So now someone he knew virtually nothing about in terms of character knows his children are home alone! Who else did GM tell about their "childcare arrangements"?
-
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5
But according to how the apartment was left ie lamp on in lounge and curtains/shutters closed in children's room I don't see how the outside light influenced anything internally?
The Paynes were on the first floor and had their own hi-tech baby monitor therefore they were not carrying out what to my mind was a bizarre checking arrangement. I don't know the layout of the apartments occupied by the Oldfields and Tanner/O'Brien but if they were similar to McCanns they may well have been walking around the front and listening at the shutters some of the time.
According to KM when GM stopped to speak with Jeremy Wilkins, who was pushing his child around in a buggy, GM discussed their "childcare arrangements". JM was someone GM had known over a matter of days through tennis. So now someone he knew virtually nothing about in terms of character knows his children are home alone! Who else did GM tell about their "childcare arrangements"?
Congratulations on picking up the general trend ... excellent progress and quick learning for a novice.
-
He would hardly pee in the front passageway. He used the toilet when he was in the apartment.
One would hope so.
-
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5
But according to how the apartment was left ie lamp on in lounge and curtains/shutters closed in children's room I don't see how the outside light influenced anything internally?
The Paynes were on the first floor and had their own hi-tech baby monitor therefore they were not carrying out what to my mind was a bizarre checking arrangement. I don't know the layout of the apartments occupied by the Oldfields and Tanner/O'Brien but if they were similar to McCanns they may well have been walking around the front and listening at the shutters some of the time.
According to KM when GM stopped to speak with Jeremy Wilkins, who was pushing his child around in a buggy, GM discussed their "childcare arrangements". JM was someone GM had known over a matter of days through tennis. So now someone he knew virtually nothing about in terms of character knows his children are home alone! Who else did GM tell about their "childcare arrangements"?
The shutters weren't completely closed, so outside daylight may have made a difference earlier on.
the external blinds closed but with some slats open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Despite everyone agreeing that the Payne's did no checking, Gerry said;
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
Jez Wilkins knew the night before (Wednesday) what the group were doing;
Jeremy and Bridget became aware that although the McCanns had taken up the use of the creche facility during the day, they had not done so for the evening hours and had left the children in the apartment but were checking on them regularly and that other members of the group appeared to be doing the same.
They expressed surprise over this.....
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
-
And a convicted perjurer is the thief of truth.
What has Amaral got to do with this thread?
-
What has Amaral got to do with this thread?
I think the credibility of someone who may have told a lie is being questioned and his trustworthiness is being discussed!
Amaral who played such a vital role in this case and who has been proven to be a liar is surely within the concept of the thread of lying and trustworthiness.
-
And a convicted perjurer is the thief of truth.
As is a liar of any description.
-
I think the credibility of someone who may have told a lie is being questioned and his trustworthiness is being discussed!
Amaral who played such a vital role in this case and who has been proven to be a liar is surely within the concept of the thread of lying and trustworthiness.
Do you think Amaral lying justifies Gerry doing it ?
-
Do you think Amaral lying justifies Gerry doing it ?
Gerry doing what?
Has it been proven he lied?
If the subject of lying and subsequent unworthiness is being discussed, then surely it's on topic to mention that Amaral who has a conviction for lying must also have his unworthiness mentioned.
-
Gerry doing what?
Has it been proven he lied?
If the subject of lying and subsequent unworthiness is being discussed, then surely it's on topic to mention that Amaral who has a conviction for lying must also have his unworthiness mentioned.
Absolutely....but I do think it has been conclusively proved that Gerry lied. The real question is, why would the father of a missing child lie simply to save face ? Was his reputation really important enough to him that he would jeopardise his credibility ?
To be clear.....the table was booked for the whole week. There was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table....and there is the lie right there.
-
Absolutely....but I do think it has been conclusively proved that Gerry lied. The real question is, why would the father of a missing child lie simply to save face ? Was his reputation really important enough to him that he would jeopardise his credibility ?
To be clear.....the table was booked for the whole week. There was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table....and there is the lie right there.
You may "think" that it has been "conclusively" proven that Gerry lied.
But until your thought is proven to be true, then unlike Amaral whose lie has been proven, you really cannot continue with the whys and wherefores based on something you cannot prove.
-
Congratulations on picking up the general trend ... excellent progress and quick learning for a novice.
Thanks. Yes, I know very little about this case but I know a lot about some others and as I see it there are common themes among them. Eg sifting the relevant from the irrelevant; looking for the devil in the detail; accepting that unless something is timed digitally eg mobile phone records it's only going to be approx; looking for facts that can withstand scrutiny; not taking what witnesses say at face value - reasons for distorting may be many.
-
Absolutely....but I do think it has been conclusively proved that Gerry lied. The real question is, why would the father of a missing child lie simply to save face ? Was his reputation really important enough to him that he would jeopardise his credibility ?
To be clear.....the table was booked for the whole week. There was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table....and there is the lie right there.
Please supply proof of your statement that there was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table on the Thursday. Please supply proof that Gerry intentionally tried to deceive and wasn’t getting mixed up (eg events of the first night with the evening of Thursday). Please supply your reasoning as to why he would lie in the face of numerous witnesses who would know he was lying. Please supply the reason why telling this lie would have been so advantageous to him that he was prepared to risk being uncovered as a liar to tell it. Of course you won’t answer this because you’re pretending to ignore me. How convenient for you.
-
Gerry doing what?
Has it been proven he lied?
If the subject of lying and subsequent unworthiness is being discussed, then surely it's on topic to mention that Amaral who has a conviction for lying must also have his unworthiness mentioned.
Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared into thin air while her parents were out. They were the last people to see her. They have spent 12 years insisting that she was taken by a stranger. There's no hard evidence supporting their claim, however. As a result the story relies heavily on their credibility. If some of the things they say don't add up that damages their credibility and therefore their story.
I don't see how Amaral's 'unworthiness' affected the PJ investigation into Madeleine's disappearabce at all.
-
Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared into thin air while her parents were out. They were the last people to see her. They have spent 12 years insisting that she was taken by a stranger. There's no hard evidence supporting their claim, however. As a result the story relies heavily on their credibility. If some of the things they say don't add up that damages their credibility and therefore their story.
I don't see how Amaral's 'unworthiness' affected the PJ investigation into Madeleine's disappearabce at all.
Well we now know he lied to Sandra Felguerias.
We shall have to disagree that his ability to lie so easily in his professional capacity may not have had any bearing on the investigation of a missing child.
-
Well we now know he lied to Sandra Felguerias.
We shall have to disagree that his ability to lie so easily in his professional capacity may not have had any bearing on the investigation of a missing child.
We know that Sandra said he lied to her, to be precise. If he did, what do you think his purpose was, and did he achieve it?
-
Please supply proof of your statement that there was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table on the Thursday. Please supply proof that Gerry intentionally tried to deceive and wasn’t getting mixed up (eg events of the first night with the evening of Thursday). Please supply your reasoning as to why he would lie in the face of numerous witnesses who would know he was lying. Please supply the reason why telling this lie would have been so advantageous to him that he was prepared to risk being uncovered as a liar to tell it. Of course you won’t answer this because you’re pretending to ignore me. How convenient for you.
MrNotbornyesterdays YouTube video seems to be all the proof needed.lol.
-
The shutters weren't completely closed, so outside daylight may have made a difference earlier on.
the external blinds closed but with some slats open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Despite everyone agreeing that the Payne's did no checking, Gerry said;
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
Jez Wilkins knew the night before (Wednesday) what the group were doing;
Jeremy and Bridget became aware that although the McCanns had taken up the use of the creche facility during the day, they had not done so for the evening hours and had left the children in the apartment but were checking on them regularly and that other members of the group appeared to be doing the same.
They expressed surprise over this.....
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
Thanks. I've only skim read GM's ws which states:
He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark.
This aligns with KM's account where she states she could not even make out whether or not MM was in her bed without the light on. And yet GM had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful MM looked. GM does not say he lit a candle or shone a torch or put the light on so how exactly did this proud parent moment come about if the room was totally dark?
Was he embellishing to convince everyone, including pj, his checks were as thorough as he claimed and to assuage any guilt he may have felt?
It seems to me this whole checking thing was not about whether any of the children would wander off, come to some harm in the apartment etc but simply to listen out for any crying. If this was the case why not just listen at the window/shutters? Did they even leave the shutters/windows partially open so they could simply walk around the front and poke their heads in?
Is this the reason JT saw GM and JW but they didn't see her? Ie if GM was checking via the front he would for some of the time be in a different location to the one he would be in if he was checking at the back.
The above is important imo. If GM did not observe MM at approx 9pm it would mean GM/KM last saw her at 8.30pm. Therefore she could have disappeared from any time between 8.30pm and 10.00pm meaning some alibis may not be so strong.
-
Who do you think you are? People do not have to supply the reasoning for the lie, just proof of the lie itself. If you want the reasoning behind it, Gerry McCann is your man for that.
Further Kate admitted lying even though she knew there was witnesses that could contradict her.....so being found out doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.
-
We know that Sandra said he lied to her, to be precise. If he did, what do you think his purpose was, and did he achieve it?
I imagine his purpose in lying to her was to further fuel the belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Yes, he did achieve that.
IMO.
-
It's the block booking that is the proof, not the video. Without that knowledge there would be no way of knowing Gerry was lying in the video.
There is something about that video which in my opinion is just not quite right!!
I'm sorry to say I still don't see any proof that Gerry was lying.
I'll have another look at it.
-
The Block Booking at The Tapas was always a bit iffy because technically this wasn't allowed, so perhaps The Party were never particularly sure that they might be refused and might have to think of something else.
At worst, Gerry's thoughts on the subject weren't lies, just ifs, buts and could haves. Just like The Video, designed and cherry picked out of context to create suspicion where there is none.
Such a silly set of maybes that amount to nothing.
-
Thanks. I've only skim read GM's ws which states:
He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark.
This aligns with KM's account where she states she could not even make out whether or not MM was in her bed without the light on. And yet GM had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful MM looked. GM does not say he lit a candle or shone a torch or put the light on so how exactly did this proud parent moment come about if the room was totally dark?
Was he embellishing to convince everyone, including pj, his checks were as thorough as he claimed and to assuage any guilt he may have felt?
It seems to me this whole checking thing was not about whether any of the children would wander off, come to some harm in the apartment etc but simply to listen out for any crying. If this was the case why not just listen at the window/shutters? Did they even leave the shutters/windows partially open so they could simply walk around the front and poke their heads in?
Is this the reason JT saw GM and JW but they didn't see her? Ie if GM was checking via the front he would for some of the time be in a different location to the one he would be in if he was checking at the back.
The above is important imo. If GM did not observe MM at approx 9pm it would mean GM/KM last saw her at 8.30pm. Therefore she could have disappeared from any time between 8.30pm and 10.00pm meaning some alibis may not be so strong.
You are discovering that 'truth' in this case ultimately comes down to opinion. As the PJ said;
the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
You are discovering that 'truth' in this case ultimately comes down to opinion. As the PJ said;
the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
However many years have passed since that was said.
Two current police investigations have as yet not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
-
So do you think Gerry was completely unaware some months later while giving his interview that the tapas had been block booked for THE WHOLE week on the Sunday prior to May 3?
What I said was that Block Bookings for a week were technically not allowed. Gerry will have known this at the time, and The Party could have been refused because their Block Booking was preventing others from booking.
-
The Block Booking at The Tapas was always a bit iffy because technically this wasn't allowed, so perhaps The Party were never particularly sure that they might be refused and might have to think of something else.
At worst, Gerry's thoughts on the subject weren't lies, just ifs, buts and could haves. Just like The Video, designed and cherry picked out of context to create suspicion where there is none.
Such a silly set of maybes that amount to nothing.
Your last sentence is appropriate to much of the suspicions raised by some!.
-
I imagine his purpose in lying to her was to further fuel the belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Yes, he did achieve that.
IMO.
So when did he do it and when did Sandra report it?
-
Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared into thin air while her parents were out. They were the last people to see her. They have spent 12 years insisting that she was taken by a stranger. There's no hard evidence supporting their claim, however. As a result the story relies heavily on their credibility. If some of the things they say don't add up that damages their credibility and therefore their story.
I don't see how Amaral's 'unworthiness' affected the PJ investigation into Madeleine's disappearabce at all.
Madeleine did not vanish into thin air. An eye witness saw a child being carried away from the apartment block at the relevant time ... a person who was carrying a child was traced 'hiding in full sight' by SY in 2013 ... why no questions for him in 2007?
-
Further Kate admitted lying even though she knew there was witnesses that could contradict her.....so being found out doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.
Cite to establish the context of that allegation please.
-
You're forgetting one critical little point, Gerry said they ALMOST thought about not going. You can't almost think about anything, which proves he made it up when they DID think about it because at the time of the interview he knew it was completely untrue.
He's thinks we're all daft IMO. But a blatant lie is a blatant lie at the end of the day, and him and his wife have just been caught out lovely.
I often almost think about doing a lot of things, especially on this Forum.
By the way, your comment is Libellous. I shall be Deleting In Full, any further comments in this vein. No almost about it.
-
If you the truth makes you feel that bad I'll go and delete it in full for you in right now.
Comme tu ver. Your comment says more about you than I would dare to. Just be a bit more careful. Merci Beaucoup.
-
Madeleine did not vanish into thin air. An eye witness saw a child being carried away from the apartment block at the relevant time ... a person who was carrying a child was traced 'hiding in full sight' by SY in 2013 ... why no questions for him in 2007?
If you are referring to the JT sighting then my understanding is SY identified a man carrying his daughter around the time time of JT's sighting?
If someone abducted a child it's unlikely they would simply walk off with him/her in their arms and PJ may well have thought it was a red herring as it turned out to be.
Having spent some time looking at the case of Jill Dando I don't rate SY at all. If this case is anything to go by they make Dad's Army look like the SAS!
-
Cite to establish the context of that allegation please.
You know the context. Kate admitted that she lied in her book. If you have a problem with that can I suggest that you take it up with the author.
-
It has certainly become apparent that even when faced with undeniable evidence that the parents committed some wrongdoing supporters will still deny the calumny.
It is rather like Donald Trump when he said that he could shoot someone and his supporters would still support him.
What I really don’t understand is that many of the ardent supporters, it appears, are professional, intelligent people yet continue to believe whatever the parents say, no matter how ridiculous.
-
You know the context. Kate admitted that she lied in her book. If you have a problem with that can I suggest that you take it up with the author.
I lie every day!
Just told one in a text to American second cousins who are visiting Scotland and want to meet up.
We've made arrangements but I told them a lie to make it easier for me to prepare their dinner at a time which suits me.
I wouldn't commit perjury though.
-
If you are referring to the JT sighting then my understanding is SY identified a man carrying his daughter around the time time of JT's sighting?
If someone abducted a child it's unlikely they would simply walk off with him/her in their arms and PJ may well have thought it was a red herring as it turned out to be.
Having spent some time looking at the case of Jill Dando I don't rate SY at all. If this case is anything to go by they make Dad's Army look like the SAS!
How could the PJ make any evaluation of a witness statement without checking it out to its conclusion? They were apparently incapable of checking creche records and discovering which parents were likely to be out and about carrying children of Madeleine's age at the time of her disappearance ... and despite Dr Totman informing police in Portugal at the time of his whereabouts, they never spoke to him!
The present investigations will know ... but we most certainly do not ... if the man Jane saw has been identified as being Dr Totman.
-
You are discovering that 'truth' in this case ultimately comes down to opinion. As the PJ said;
the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Yes most will be down to opinion but not all. I see these cases like jigsaw puzzles where the corners and borders are the facts capable of withstanding scrutiny. These pieces need to be found first and then the other pieces will fall into place.
-
Madeleine did not vanish into thin air. An eye witness saw a child being carried away from the apartment block at the relevant time ... a person who was carrying a child was traced 'hiding in full sight' by SY in 2013 ... why no questions for him in 2007?
An eye witness saw a man carrying a child, but it hasn't been connected to Madeleine's disappearance except by the witness, the McCanns and, it seems, you.
-
It has certainly become apparent that even when faced with undeniable evidence that the parents committed some wrongdoing supporters will still deny the calumny.
It is rather like Donald Trump when he said that he could shoot someone and his supporters would still support him.
What I really don’t understand is that many of the ardent supporters, it appears, are professional, intelligent people yet continue to believe whatever the parents say, no matter how ridiculous. Perhaps it’s an age thing ?
There's that ageism thing again.
My grandchildren are much, much younger than you, I believe.
Thankfully they are not so blinkered in their appreciation of the wisdom which all their grandparents bring into their lives.
-
Fact..Gerry said that they weren’t sure that they’d get into the tapas bar that night...the files show us that the group had booked a table for every night that week...ergo, he lied.
Why he lied is opinion.....that he lied is not.
Could it be that they thought they wouldn't get into the tapas bar that night BEFORE it was booked for the week?
-
How could the PJ make any evaluation of a witness statement without checking it out to its conclusion? They were apparently incapable of checking creche records and discovering which parents were likely to be out and about carrying children of Madeleine's age at the time of her disappearance ... and despite Dr Totman informing police in Portugal at the time of his whereabouts, they never spoke to him!
The present investigations will know ... but we most certainly do not ... if the man Jane saw has been identified as being Dr Totman.
From the cases I've looked at in any detail (UK and NZ) there's always incompetence and negligence much room for improvement!
-
I lie every day!
Just told one in a text to American second cousins who are visiting Scotland and want to meet up.
We've made arrangements but I told them a lie to make it easier for me to prepare their dinner at a time which suits me.
I wouldn't commit perjury though.
It’s not about perjury, it’s about credibility.
-
Supporters thought please ?
Imo we should take what the parents will say with a big pinch of salt. They will feel tremendous guilt about this crazy "childcare arrangement" and have distorted the facts to assuage guilt and possibly shame imo. They want to remove any idea MM came to some harm in the apartment and/or woke and wandered and sell it hard MM was abducted as this makes them less responsible for MM's disappearance.
-
It’s not about perjury, it’s about credibility.
There's definitely no credibility or worthiness can be given to anyone who would commit perjury.
-
There's that ageism thing again.
My grandchildren are much, much younger than you, I believe, thankfully they are not so blinkered in their appreciation of the wisdom which all their grandparents bring into their lives.
I think older people have much they can teach those of a different generation but many of them do retain the propensity not to see doctor’s, policemen etc as mere mortals with the same failing as the rest of us. I really do believe that this partly explains why the most ardent supporters of the parents are of a certain age.
-
However many years have passed since that was said.
Two current police investigations have as yet not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
The passage of time doesn't change facts, evidence does.
-
Yes most will be down to opinion but not all. I see these cases like jigsaw puzzles where the corners and borders are the facts capable of withstanding scrutiny. These pieces need to be found first and then the other pieces will fall into place.
I wonder what it is that Scotland Yard and the Judicial Police are doing with their time and our money IN 2019 as they ponder on the weighty subject of TAPAS-V-MILLENIUM of 2007?
-
From the cases I've looked at in any detail (UK and NZ) there's always incompetence and negligence much room for improvement!
I think you will go far before you will find anything approaching the level of incompetence Madeleine McCann's case was subjected to.
-
I think older people have much they can teach those of a different generation but many of them do retain the propensity not to see doctor’s, policemen etc as mere mortals with the same failing as the rest of us. I really do believe that this partly explains why the most ardent supporters of the parents are of a certain age.
Utter rubbish!
I had two uncles who were doctors, have a friend who is a doctor and I regard and did regard them as mortals with failings.
You do have some strange ideas in my opinion.
What is this certain age?
Are all the "ardent supporters" in the same"certain age" category?
-
There's definitely no credibility or worthiness can be given to anyone who would commit perjury.
I’m not disagreeing with you so I’m not sure why you keep repeating it and if this was a thread about Amaral lying then I’d see your point, however it isn’t.
I’m sure Gerry was smarting at the criticism of his and his wife’s parenting and perhaps wanted to neutralise some of the bad press. However, to me, there is no excuse for even a tiny lie when your credibility as a witness is important.
-
The passage of time doesn't change facts, evidence does.
True.
And you have no idea of what evidence has been discovered by the two current police investigations?
-
It’s not about perjury, it’s about credibility.
Have The McCanns committed Perjury? I must have missed that.
-
Utter rubbish!
I had two uncles who were doctors, have a friend who is a doctor and I regard and did regard them as mortals with failings.
You do have some strange ideas in my opinion.
What is this certain age?
Are all the "ardent supporters" in the same"certain age" category?
It would appear so.....or certainly the vast majority of them.
-
I’m not disagreeing with you so I’m not sure why you keep repeating it and if this was a thread about Amaral lying then I’d see your point, however it isn’t.
I’m sure Gerry was smarting at the criticism of his and his wife’s parenting and perhaps wanted to neutralise some of the bad press. However, to me, there is no excuse for even a tiny lie when your credibility as a witness is important.
I might agree if he was being interviewed as a witness but he wasn't.
He wasn't in court as a witness where his credibility was important.
It is a very badly produced video with the contents of a TV informal interview , cherry picked as Eleanor has pointed out!
Now some sceptics have taken that video and this supposed lie, where is the proof?
There's none.
Eleanor has pointed out the weaknesses in your theory in a much more succinct post than mine.
-
Yes most will be down to opinion but not all. I see these cases like jigsaw puzzles where the corners and borders are the facts capable of withstanding scrutiny. These pieces need to be found first and then the other pieces will fall into place.
Have you found any definite facts so far?
-
Imo we should take what the parents will say with a big pinch of salt. They will feel tremendous guilt about this crazy "childcare arrangement" and have distorted the facts to assuage guilt and possibly shame imo. They want to remove any idea MM came to some harm in the apartment and/or woke and wandered and sell it hard MM was abducted as this makes them less responsible for MM's disappearance.
I don't think The McCanns feel like this. But what blame to The Abductor?
-
Have The McCanns committed Perjury? I must have missed that.
Of course not but Erngath, for reasons known only to herself, keeps on banging on about it.
-
The passage of time doesn't change facts, evidence does.
The passage of time allows for evidence to be assessed and evaluated by fresh eyes which is precisely what happened at the review stages of Madeleine's case carried out independently by the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard; which led both teams to recommend the reopening of Madeleine's case.
Both police authorities stressed that Madeleine's parents were not suspects and they were invited to Portugal to be briefed.
-
It would appear so.....or certainly the vast majority of them.
It's very difficult to express my opinion of your theory without using the words "utter rubbish"
Could you give a little more detail of what that "certain age" might be.
Over seventy?
Over sixty?
At what age do you believe this propensity to see professionals as "not mere mortals" decline?
-
Of course not but Erngath, for reasons known only to herself, keeps on banging on about it.
You started the thread about telling lies and trustworthiness.
I didn't.
I won't mention Amaral's conviction for perjury again today!
-
The passage of time doesn't change facts, evidence does.
Find The Evidence. Proof is another thing altogether. Some of us ageing people haven't quite lost our marbles, probably due to arguing this case. Nor you neither.
It is all a case of Semantics in the end, and a desire to be able to put across our totally irrelevant understanding of The Law.
Your average Barrister would discard most of what we talk about.
I often have to think about what I might say, mainly because I don't want to come across as a complete ignoramus. But I probably could tell you what actually matters.
-
I might agree if he was being interviewed as a witness but he wasn't.
He wasn't in court as a witness where his credibility was important.
It is a very badly produced video with the contents of a TV informal interview , cherry picked as Eleanor has pointed out!
Now some sceptics have taken that video and this supposed lie, where is the proof?
There's none.
Eleanor has pointed out the weaknesses in your theory in a much more succinct post than mine.
It was a video produced by Emma Loach, a friend of the parents I seem to remember. Wasn’t she a witness for them in Lisbon ? Details of the segment in dispute was published in a respected broadsheet, which was posted earlier.
‘The parents of Madeleine McCann have told how it was only a last-minute change of plan that led them to leave their children alone on the night their daughter disappeared.
Kate and Gerry McCann said that they had planned to take the family to The Millennium, a restaurant half a mile away. But because Madeleine and their twins, Sean and Amelie, were tired they decided to put them to bed and eat at the tapas restaurant near their apartment.
...The couple speak about their change of heart during a two-hour documentary, Madeleine, One Year On, Campaign for Change to be televised tonight.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1908158/Madeleine-McCann-left-alone-as-last-minute-decision.html’
And this was also posted from the programme.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id453.htm
Gerry said: "I think the worst thing is we kind of almost thought about not going. And er, and did. We weren’t sure we were going to get into the tapas, remember, and…"
Kate said: "In fact we were all, we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, it was just because the walk was so long and we didn’t have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought we were, you know we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night”
What more proof do you need of the lie ?
-
You started the thread about telling lies and trustworthiness.
I didn't.
I won't mention Amaral's conviction for perjury again today!
I did, but the parent’s lies and untrustworthiness.
As to not mentioning perjury again...good.
-
You know the context. Kate admitted that she lied in her book. If you have a problem with that can I suggest that you take it up with the author.
It is not down to me to determine what interpretation to put on any member's esoteric statements in the absence of an appropriate cite ... that is for the member to provide on request.
Refusal to provide a valid cite and context for assertions made in posts introduces the issue of lying by omission.
I requested a cite ... I would still like to be given one.
-
It was a video produced by Emma Loach, a friend of the parents I seem to remember. Wasn’t she a witness for them in Lisbon ? Details of the segment in dispute was published in a respected broadsheet, which was posted earlier.
‘The parents of Madeleine McCann have told how it was only a last-minute change of plan that led them to leave their children alone on the night their daughter disappeared.
Kate and Gerry McCann said that they had planned to take the family to The Millennium, a restaurant half a mile away. But because Madeleine and their twins, Sean and Amelie, were tired they decided to put them to bed and eat at the tapas restaurant near their apartment.
...The couple speak about their change of heart during a two-hour documentary, Madeleine, One Year On, Campaign for Change to be televised tonight.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1908158/Madeleine-McCann-left-alone-as-last-minute-decision.html’
And this was also posted from the programme.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id453.htm
Gerry said: "I think the worst thing is we kind of almost thought about not going. And er, and did. We weren’t sure we were going to get into the tapas, remember, and…"
Kate said: "In fact we were all, we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, it was just because the walk was so long and we didn’t have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought we were, you know we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night”
What more proof do you need of the lie ?
Perhaps earlier that day or on the previous evening there had been doubt expressed about the black booking?
Eleanors previous post on this was very worthwhile in my opinion.
You think he was lying.
There is no proof.
-
It is not down to me to determine what interpretation to put on any member's esoteric statements in the absence of an appropriate cite ... that is for the member to provide on request.
Refusal to provide a valid cite and context for assertions made in posts introduces the issue of lying by omission.
I requested a cite ... I would still like to be given one.
Fair enough, though heaven knows why you’d want me to reiterate Kate’s dishonesty.
From Madeleine by Kate McCann.
We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice. As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.
-
Perhaps earlier that day or on the previous evening there had been doubt expressed about the black booking?
Eleanors previous post on this was very worthwhile in my opinion.
You think he was lying.
There is no proof.
I don't recall any of the other group members suggesting that there was doubt about the booking.
-
What more proof do you need? You heard what Gerry said and were shown where they had block booked the tapas making Gerry's claim impossible to be true.
It was just a booking. There would be a mechanism to cancel a booking IMO.
-
True.
And you have no idea of what evidence has been discovered by the two current police investigations?
I have evidence. If you want to refute it you need evidence too. Speculation counts for nothing.
-
Perhaps earlier that day or on the previous evening there had been doubt expressed about the black booking?
Eleanors previous post on this was very worthwhile in my opinion.
You think he was lying.
There is no proof.
There had been doubt expressed ? Do you have a cite that leads you to that conclusion?
-
It's very difficult to express my opinion of your theory without using the words "utter rubbish"
Could you give a little more detail of what that "certain age" might be.
Over seventy?
Over sixty?
At what age do you believe this propensity to see professionals as "not mere mortals" decline?
I am now eighty years old. I am generally totally ignored, unless when people around me are trying to be kind. My memory is absolutely suspect when it comes to things I don't want to remember. But I remember every single thing about this case that I ever read, although this can never be all. There is just too much of it.
In the beginning I gave much thought to the involvement of The McCanns. I thought that they were involved. On reflection, God knows why. There is nothing with which to indict them. I can only guess that I briefly got carried away with The Blame Game. I am still mortally ashamed. Especially when I finally remembered that I had left my own children alone in similar circumstances.
The one thing I am certain sure of is that should The McCanns eventually be found to be culpable I won't have spent the last twelve years being thoroughly nasty, and doing my head in with such hatred.
-
Of course not but Erngath, for reasons known only to herself, keeps on banging on about it.
Should she not, do you think?
-
Fair enough, though heaven knows why you’d want me to reiterate Kate’s dishonesty.
From Madeleine by Kate McCann.
We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice. As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.
In what way did that white lie of an excuse to the media harm the PJ investigation or the McCanns' credibility?
-
So do you think Gerry was completely unaware some months later while giving his interview that the tapas had been block booked for THE WHOLE week on the Sunday prior to May 3?
The block booking was against the rules of the business arrangement between Mark Warner and the Ocean Club. I have seen it, the one group was not suppose to block book night after night, to allow all MW guests a chance to dine at the Tapas.
-
In what way did that white lie of an excuse to the media harm the PJ investigation or the McCanns' credibility?
It’s a lie.
-
Fair enough, though heaven knows why you’d want me to reiterate Kate’s dishonesty.
From Madeleine by Kate McCann.
We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice. As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.
Thank you.
It is always good to have everything in context, don't you think, and viewing what Kate actually said certainly puts it all in context as I'm sure you knew it would.
By the way ... I have missed out on appointments or changed arrangements due to having a 'mild stomach upset' as such a complaint has the potential to escalate into a major embarrassment depending on circumstances..
-
Find The Evidence. Proof is another thing altogether. Some of us ageing people haven't quite lost our marbles, probably due to arguing this case. Nor you neither.
It is all a case of Semantics in the end, and a desire to be able to put across our totally irrelevant understanding of The Law.
Your average Barrister would discard most of what we talk about.
I often have to think about what I might say, mainly because I don't want to come across as a complete ignoramus. But I probably could tell you what actually matters.
Very good point. 8@??)(
-
It’s a lie.
Father Christmas is a lie.
Would it have been better for the McCanns to lead the press away from what the PJ were planning to do at the villa, thus practicing deception?
-
The block booking was against the rules of the business arrangement between Mark Warner and the Ocean Club. I have seen it, the one group was not suppose to block book night after night, to allow all MW guests a chance to dine at the Tapas.
Thank You, Rob. This is true. Their party was never sure.
-
Thank You, Rob. This is true. Their party was never sure.
Sure of that, or is that just your opinion ?
-
It’s a lie.
No, it is not. Blimin Semantics again. Which is all you have.
-
I am now eighty years old. I am generally totally ignored, unless when people around me are trying to be kind. My memory is absolutely suspect when it comes to things I don't want to remember. But I remember every single thing about this case that I ever read, although this can never be all. There is just too much of it.
In the beginning I gave much thought to the involvement of The McCanns. I thought that they were involved. On reflection, God knows why. There is nothing with which to indict them. I can only guess that I briefly got carried away with The Blame Game. I am still mortally ashamed. Especially when I finally remembered that I had left my own children alone in similar circumstances.
The one thing I am certain sure of is that should The McCanns eventually be found to be culpable I won't have spent the last twelve years being thoroughly nasty, and doing my head in with such hatred.
An excellent post which merits quiet contemplation for some about the legitimacy of the hounding of a family over a twelve year period in the way it continues to be encouraged and condoned.
None know better than us the utter balderdash which pollutes the internet regarding them. How anyone can justify in any way that Madeleine's siblings cannot possibly escape from any of that is surely beyond belief or excuse.
-
Very good point. 8@??)(
Thanks for appreciating that. I spent many moons In Court listening to people arguing irrelevant rubbish. I never lost a Case.
-
I don't recall any of the other group members suggesting that there was doubt about the booking.
Were they in that video interview?
-
Were they in that video interview?
You tell me. I've said I don't remember such an event.
-
An excellent post which merits quiet contemplation for some about the legitimacy of the hounding of a family over a twelve year period in the way it continues to be encouraged and condoned.
None know better than us the utter balderdash which pollutes the internet regarding them. How anyone can justify in any way that Madeleine's siblings cannot possibly escape from any of that is surely beyond belief or excuse.
Nobody needs to justify anything unless they break the law
-
Sure of that, or is that just your opinion ?
It was not a regular arrangement and did prevent other people from booking. The arrangement could have been cancelled.
God shut my mouth. If only you knew how often.
-
Have you found any definite facts so far?
Yes. The science of sleep shows 100% the twins could sleep through all the commotion thus dispelling the myths about sedation.
We know night is dark. We know PL at approx 9pm on 3rd May is as dark as it gets and in a bedroom with the light off, shutters down and curtains closed was in total darkness as GM claimed in his WS and KM has always maintained. So this whole proud parent moment where GM claims to look at MM thinking how beautiful she is, is imo unreliable. If he was unable to make out MM why embellish:
- Didn't enter bedroom, or even apartment, as he claimed and wanted to appear less irresponsible claiming he was making physical checks when in reality he was listening at the window only.
- Wanted to create a narrative to steer the direction with PJ that MM was abducted.
- Knew KM would hit the roof if was being less than thorough with his checking. He was in a hurry to get back to the table and he claims when he saw JW he dithered as to whether he should go over and start a conversation. Did the conversation happen first? He then took a shortcut and listened at the window rather than opening the gate, walking up the steps, opening the child gate, sliding the patio doors, moving the curtains and doing all again on his return? Having worked in a male dominated environment for over some 2.5 decades imo men will take shortcuts and risks where women will often be more diligent.
-
The block booking was against the rules of the business arrangement between Mark Warner and the Ocean Club. I have seen it, the one group was not suppose to block book night after night, to allow all MW guests a chance to dine at the Tapas.
So why were they allowed to break the rules?
-
I think you will go far before you will find anything approaching the level of incompetence Madeleine McCann's case was subjected to.
This may well be the case but imo the parents have hampered the investigation. They want to sell it hard to the world and its dog that MM was abducted because it assuages their guilt over the crazy "childcare arrangements".
An example in Kate's book is that she discounts MM waking and wondering on the basis she was 3 yoa along with some other factors. The fact is when MM disappeared she was a few days off her 4th birthday. Child development shows us what a child can master at 3 is quite different to what a child can master at 4.
-
This may well be the case but imo the parents have hampered the investigation. They want to sell it hard to the world and its dog that MM was abducted because it assuages their guilt over the crazy "childcare arrangements".
An example in Kate's book is that she discounts MM waking and wondering on the basis she was 3 yoa along with some other factors. The fact is when MM disappeared she was a few days off her 4th birthday. Child development shows us what a child can master at 3 is quite different to what a child can master at 4.
But surely she, Kate, is better at judging what her own child could be capable of or not, than any of us onlookers.
-
So why leave the door open if she was so sure that Madeleine wouldn't use it ?
-
Should she not, do you think?
Whatever floats her boat Eleanor, whatever floats her boat.
-
Thank you.
It is always good to have everything in context, don't you think, and viewing what Kate actually said certainly puts it all in context as I'm sure you knew it would.
By the way ... I have missed out on appointments or changed arrangements due to having a 'mild stomach upset' as such a complaint has the potential to escalate into a major embarrassment depending on circumstances..
The context is that she lied to cover up something unpalatable and that undermines perilously her credibility in all other statements.
-
No, it is not. Blimin Semantics again. Which is all you have.
It is. They said something false.
-
But surely she, Kate, is better at judging what her own child could be capable of or not, than any of us onlookers.
Kate told Fiona that she left the patio doors open so Madeleine could get out.
-
But surely she, Kate, is better at judging what her own child could be capable of or not, than any of us onlookers.
No she is not an independent witness. She is a guilt ridden traumatized parent who wants to sell the abduction theory to assuage her guilt and make her seem less responsible for MM's disappearance.
The best person to determine whether an average just about 4 year old child would be capable of waking and wondering is a child psychologist perhaps in conjunction with those who knew MM.
I thought the parents and others who knew MM described her as bright and intelligent. It is generally considered intelligence is inherited so given the parent's occupations it is unlikely MM was not at the very least of average intelligence.
3 year olds often make a 999 call and end up saving a life.
-
So why were they allowed to break the rules?
We don't know for why. Perhaps because it was nine people who might come back to holiday again. But the fact is that it was not in the regulations.
I don't know what this might have to do with Gerry's thoughts, but we only have a mish mash of ifs and maybes.
And I don't care anyway. This is hardly likely to convict anyone.
However, this something else to talk about, which is fine by me.
-
Whatever floats her boat Eleanor, whatever floats her boat.
Her is still here.
Apparently that means to appeal to or to excite someone especially sexually.!
Definitely not.
Now the thought of George Clooney in court and committing perjury, might just do it but definitely not Amaral.
-
Whatever floats her boat Eleanor, whatever floats her boat.
Are you saying that other Members are not entitled to an opinion?
-
It is. They said something false.
Semantics are never False. Just an idea of an interpretation.
-
Imo we should take what the parents will say with a big pinch of salt. They will feel tremendous guilt about this crazy "childcare arrangement" and have distorted the facts to assuage guilt and possibly shame imo. They want to remove any idea MM came to some harm in the apartment and/or woke and wandered and sell it hard MM was abducted as this makes them less responsible for MM's disappearance.
I have no doubt the McCann's will have a lot of guilt about leaving the children, it is something they will regret for the rest of their lives.
How does the sell hard Madeleine was abducted make them less responsible? Many anti's have pointed out that the McCann's made Madeleine an easy target for an abductor by leaving them and the patio door open.
The window was open, Kate and Gerry have said Madeleine wouldn't have opened it, so in my opinion someone else opened it and I don't mean Kate. IMO
-
No she is not an independent witness. She is a guilt ridden traumatized parent who wants to sell the abduction theory to assuage her guilt and make her seem less responsible for MM's disappearance.
The best person to determine whether an average just about 4 year old child would be capable of waking and wondering is a child psychologist perhaps in conjunction with those who knew MM.
I thought the parents and others who knew MM described her as bright and intelligent. It is generally considered intelligence is inherited so given the parent's occupations it is unlikely MM was not at the very least of average intelligence.
3 year olds often make a 999 call and end up saving a life.
Some three year olds could make a 999 call and articulate what is the emergency.
Some could not.
Being bright and intelligent has nothing to do with how adventurous a child will be and whether they would walk out of an apartment into the dark.
We will just have to disagree about who knows a child better.
The mother or a child psychologist who may observe and talk to a child on an occasion.
-
Are you saying that other Members are not entitled to an opinion?
I’m saying the opposite.
-
Her is still here.
Apparently that means to appeal to or to excite someone especially sexually.!
Definitely not.
Now the thought of George Clooney in court and committing perjury, might just do it but definitely not Amaral.
Yuck ! Not sure where that came from.
-
Yuck ! Not sure where that came from.
Yuk.
It's your post with the " float the boat" comment about me.
I had to Google what it meant.
So the yuk began with you.
-
A reminder everyone to keep posts convivial please. TY
-
Yuk.
It's your post with the " float the boat" comment about me.
I had to Google what it meant.
So the yuk began with you.
From the Urban dictionary.
whatever floats your boat
This is a phrase that often means whatever "soothes your soul" or whatever "works best" Aka- Whatever you feel like doing.
So Amir what do you feel like doing tonight? Whatever floats your boat man.
yuck1
/jʌk/
INFORMAL
exclamation
1.
used to express strong distaste or disgust.
"Raw herrings! Yuck!"
It appears the problem is with you.
-
From the Urban dictionary.
whatever floats your boat
This is a phrase that often means whatever "soothes your soul" or whatever "works best" Aka- Whatever you feel like doing.
So Amir what do you feel like doing tonight? Whatever floats your boat man.
yuck1
/jʌk/
INFORMAL
exclamation
1.
used to express strong distaste or disgust.
"Raw herrings! Yuck!"
It appears the problem is with you.
I don't use the urban dictionary.
I wasn't sure what that phrase meant and had to Google and see.
That was the meaning of your expression which I read.
I was quite surprised at your use of it.
Perhaps best to check an expression before applying it to a member of this forum.
-
I don't use the urban dictionary.
I wasn't sure what that phrase meant and had to Google and see.
That was the meaning of your expression which I read.
I was quite surprised at your use of it.
Perhaps best to check an expression before applying it to a member of this forum.
You must have searched quite hard for such a salacious interpretation of the phrase. In fact I’ve been unable to find a similar meaning. The phrase is not considered to be rude.
-
You must have searched quite hard for such a salacious interpretation of the phrase. In fact I’ve been unable to find a similar meaning. The phrase is not considered to be rude.
No, I didn't.
Why would I search quite hard to find a salacious meaning of the phrase??
Thats not a particularly pleasant accusation.
I'm sure you didn't intend it to be rude, nor did I take offence but rather you were the one who went into defensive mode.
If you read back I did make a joke about it and also managed to make a reference to the perjury word, naughty I know.
Perhaps best to let the matter rest and back on the topic of the thread
-
A reminder everyone to keep posts convivial please. TY
What? How many Deletions do you want? Your Moderators are being undermind. And I often can't cope with this. You have gone too far in the name of fairness.
-
What? How many Deletions do you want? Your Moderators are being undermind. And I often can't cope with this. You have gone too far in the name of fairness.
Interesting premise. Can one go too far in the name of fairness?
-
No she is not an independent witness. She is a guilt ridden traumatized parent who wants to sell the abduction theory to assuage her guilt and make her seem less responsible for MM's disappearance.
The best person to determine whether an average just about 4 year old child would be capable of waking and wondering is a child psychologist perhaps in conjunction with those who knew MM.
I thought the parents and others who knew MM described her as bright and intelligent. It is generally considered intelligence is inherited so given the parent's occupations it is unlikely MM was not at the very least of average intelligence.
3 year olds often make a 999 call and end up saving a life.
I firmly believe that the "guilt ridden traumatised parent" who was on the ground and observing at first hand the way the police were conducting her daughters case was doing her level best on her behalf.
The aim being
... to find out what had happened to her
... to have her returned to the bosom of her family
The proof of that is in the untiring vigour with which she pursued Madeleine's case ultimately lobbying and pressurising the powers that be to carry out proper investigations into the disappearance. Ultimately leading to the present work of the Judicial Police and Scotland Yard which is still active seven years down the line.
No mean feat.
-
You must have searched quite hard for such a salacious interpretation of the phrase. In fact I’ve been unable to find a similar meaning. The phrase is not considered to be rude.
Nope ... I have just googled it and the top of the page gave me what I presume Erngath read. I had no idea that was the origin of the saying.
-
Nope ... I have just googled it and the top of the page gave me what I presume Erngath read. I had no idea that was the origin of the saying.
Now there’s a surprise.
I searched on both safari and google and both came up with the urban dictionary top. Members can do it themselves if they’re interested.
-
No, I didn't.
Why would I search quite hard to find a salacious meaning of the phrase??
Thats not a particularly pleasant accusation.
I'm sure you didn't intend it to be rude, nor did I take offence but rather you were the one who went into defensive mode.
If you read back I did make a joke about it and also managed to make a reference to the perjury word, naughty I know.
Perhaps best to let the matter rest and back on the topic of the thread
As my mother used to say to troublemakers....you’d cause trouble in an empty house.
-
Interesting premise. Can one go too far in the name of fairness?
Not my problem. I do what I am told to do. Which is more or less nothing at all.
-
As my mother used to say to troublemakers....you’d cause trouble in an empty house.
Well done you for following your Mother's advice. My Grandmother use to say, Mrs. Do As You Would Be Done By."
-
Well done you for following your Mother's advice. My Grandmother use to say, Mrs. Do As You Would Be Done By."
Snap. So did mine and I have nor regrets about living my life by doing my best to cause no harm to anyone.
Another one was that I was always admonished that if I had nothing good to say about someone to say nothing at all.
I wonder how many sins of omission trying to stick to that one earned me.
-
As my mother used to say to troublemakers....you’d cause trouble in an empty house.
Fortunately my mother never had to say that to any of her children.
-
Snap. So did mine and I have nor regrets about living my life by doing my best to cause no harm to anyone.
Another one was that I was always admonished that if I had nothing good to say about someone to say nothing at all.
I wonder how many sins of omission trying to stick to that one earned me.
None at all, I shouldn't think. But then who knows? You can't defend all. But perhaps one should try. Which is probably why I am doing this. It just happens to be my priority at the moment.
And I will lose nothing in the process.
-
Fortunately my mother never had to say that to any of her children.
No point huh 8(0(*
-
No point huh 8(0(*
Some of our Mothers and Grandmothers were a bit more kind, which might explain for why we are too. Perhaps kindness is Genetic.
My sons are kind.
-
No point huh 8(0(*
Yes no point.
None of us were any trouble at all at home or in school.
Very well brought up children.
Why did your mother use that expression?
Were you a little trouble maker?
-
Some of our Mothers and Grandmothers were a bit more kind, which might explain for why we are too. Perhaps kindness is Genetic.
My sons are kind.
It's the best way to be.
-
Does this video prove that the parents were prepared to lie to the public about what happened that night?
If not, why not?
You tell us. Your opinion is likely more interesting.
-
The words I am hearing are not my opinion.
So, you have no opinion.
-
I have an opinion on what those words prove, that's why I asked the question?
And I am not obliged to answer absolute rubbish.
-
You just have. Thanks!
Are you mad, or what?
-
What do you find 'mad' about my question that you are not obliged to answer?
That you thought you had some right to expect an answer to absolute rubbish.
-
Presumably you will have some sort of explanation for this 'absolute rubbish'?
It isn't possible to answer absolute rubbish.
-
Whoever made that video is a stirrer.
It is obvious to me that Gerry is talking about the beginning of the week when they thought they wouldn't get into the Tapas Bar, as it happened though they did and it was booked for the whole week. If they had all gone to the Millenium all week then they would have taken the children as it would have been too far for them to have done the checking.
-
Further Kate admitted lying even though she knew there was witnesses that could contradict her.....so being found out doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.
When did Kate admit lying and about what?
-
Who do you think you are? People do not have to supply the reasoning for the lie, just proof of the lie itself. If you want the reasoning behind it, Gerry McCann is your man for that.
Has any proof been supplied, about anything?
-
It has certainly become apparent that even when faced with undeniable evidence that the parents committed some wrongdoing supporters will still deny the calumny.
It is rather like Donald Trump when he said that he could shoot someone and his supporters would still support him.
What I really don’t understand is that many of the ardent supporters, it appears, are professional, intelligent people yet continue to believe whatever the parents say, no matter how ridiculous.
What wrong doing was committed in this video clip?
-
It’s not about perjury, it’s about credibility.
Credibility in whose eyes that matter a damn?
-
I think older people have much they can teach those of a different generation but many of them do retain the propensity not to see doctor’s, policemen etc as mere mortals with the same failing as the rest of us. I really do believe that this partly explains why the most ardent supporters of the parents are of a certain age.
Absolute tosh. Many of the most ardent sceptics are women of a certain age, ie 60+
-
It would appear so.....or certainly the vast majority of them.
You really haven’t a clue. And you’re no spring chicken yoursen’ truth be told!
-
Some of our Mothers and Grandmothers were a bit more kind, which might explain for why we are too. Perhaps kindness is Genetic.
My sons are kind.
I hear Hitler’s mother was the kindest woman you’d meet.
-
It’s a lie.
Which Kate owned up to and which harmed no one and was perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Don’t you think it’s ever so childish to be so utterly black and white about things like this? “Please Miss, Katie lied, she must be a bad person”. It’s really pathetic.
-
I hear Hitler’s mother was the kindest woman you’d meet.
Cite please. Oh and *Godwin Klaxon*
-
Don't you think the fact his wife agrees with his so called 'mix up' is just pushing the innocent mistakes bit, just a little bit too far? You'll lose you own credibility if you're not careful. And you're the most credible supporter of the lot IMO.
Be careful!
8)><(. Oh no, wouldn’t want to lose my credibility in the eyes of a Cheeky Monkey. OK McCanns are both evil liars with no credibility, lock ‘em up and throw away the key. I hope that has restored your faith in me. 8)--))
-
Yes no point.
None of us were any trouble at all at home or in school.
Very well brought up children.
Why did your mother use that expression?
We're you a little trouble maker?
Surely it’s were ? Yuk and now we’re....are you sure you were a teacher Erngath? Let’s hope you weren’t teaching English.
Injustice was my thing....I could never let one go by without protesting against it. I suppose to some that may be considered making trouble.
-
8)><(. Oh no, wouldn’t want to lose my credibility in the eyes of a Cheeky Monkey. OK McCanns are both evil liars with no credibility, lock ‘em up and throw away the key. I hope that has restored your faith in me. 8)--))
Finally the penny has dropped.
-
Proof has been supplied about the block booking and proof has been supplied citing what they both said. That's were your credibility comes in and what you choose to ignore!
So you haven’t been able to prove Gerry lied, oh well never mind.
-
I think older people have much they can teach those of a different generation but many of them do retain the propensity not to see doctor’s, policemen etc as mere mortals with the same failing as the rest of us. I really do believe that this partly explains why the most ardent supporters of the parents are of a certain age.
Im an ardent supporter ...over 60 but none of what you say applies to me. My opinion is that ardent supporters are just more intelligent and understand the evidence better than the sceptics..
-
Finally the penny has dropped.
touche
-
You missed out IYO. I can live with that.
It's your credibility after all, not mine. I have proof for mine.
No you don’t, you just think you do, because it suits you to think that. Gerry lying is only one of three possibilities, none can be proven one way or the other. And that’s a fact.
-
Surely it’s were ? Yuk and now we’re....are you sure you were a teacher Erngath? Let’s hope you weren’t teaching English.
Injustice was my thing....I could never let one go by without protesting against it. I suppose to some that may be considered making trouble.
I can well imagine the trouble you could cause.
I find it dreadfully amusing when you pick up an error in my posts.
I was using my phone this morning.
The small keys do cause some difficulty, as does predictive text .
The number of times you make reference to my alleged, supposed and " are you sure, teaching profession is also amusing.
Happy faces were used to reward children's good work.
One to you for brightening my day. ?{)(**
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_FLtCGolzg
-
You just don't get it, do you? If they both say @ 2.36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFL6Jown0LE it rules the other two possibilities out because we know they both KNEW they had a block booking for the whole week.
UNLESS you're suggesting no one ever told them about the booking prior to the Thursday. Is that what you are suggesting? You're credibility is on the line with this one?
No I’m not suggesting they didn’t know though actually that is a possibility albeit remote. I’m suggesting that aside from lying they might be telling the truth and that there was some suggestion that despite their block booking there may have been an issue re booking that was subsequently resolved before the evening, or that Gerry might just have mixed up his days, and that the issue of getting a place at the restaurant was in doubt at the beginning of the holiday not the end. I don’t see Kate agreeing btw.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_FLtCGolzg
Has the ban to links to HiDeHo’s propaganda videos been lifted now? What a coup for the sceptics, and a few extra pence in the old woman’s kitty. @)(++(*
-
Do you see her disagreeing? Do you see her enforcing the claim or is that my imagination playing tricks on me?
She did not agree, she did not say “oh yes Gerry that’s what happened”, she ignored his throw away comment if I recall correctly.
-
I believe she can be seen raising her eyebrows & giving a slight nod in agreement.
-
Has the ban to links to HiDeHo’s propaganda videos been lifted now? What a coup for the sceptics, and a few extra pence in the old woman’s kitty. @)(++(*
I didn't know her videos had been banned.
Care to address the content of the video?
-
Seriously who in the world, apart from a few sad sceptics on the net even gave Gerry’s remark a second’s thought ever again after seeing the video? Talk about mountains out of molehills. People need to get real. This is nitpicking to the nth degree and is supremely unimportant in the scheme of things. Gerry McCann’s remark has not destroyed his credibility. He goes from strength to strength in hos career. He gets gigs on Radio 4 to talk about his grief. His wife is an ambassador for a national charity. They both rub shoulders with people in notable positions in the country including politicians, archbishops, senior policemen, celebrities. The only people whose credibility is undermined by this non-issue is those who are making it an issue.
All IMO (as I am mandated to put at the end of my posts).
-
I didn't know her videos had been banned.
Care to address the content of the video?
I clicked on it and it made such a racket I clicked off straight away. Seriously, not gonna watch badly put together anti McCann propaganda with a shit soundtrack, soz la.
-
I clicked on it and it made such a racket I clicked off straight away. Seriously, not gonna watch badly put together anti McCann propaganda with a shit soundtrack, soz la.
Well if you aren't going to watch it I'll fill you in on the detail.
Gerry lied about the reason for his return to Portugal, the end.
-
I wonder why there aren't any Pro-McCann videos on youtube, displaying how honest & trustworthy the couple are?
-
That's where you're credibility is falling apart IMO.
When a child is reported missing, as in STILL missing, and her mother and father have been proven to have lied to the public about what happened, what credible person in their right mind, would consider such a thing as a 'non-issue'?
Two current police investigations ?
-
Two current police investigations ?
Yes, both forces have said they are not suspects.
They never said they weren't Prime suspects though, or that they didn't do it.
-
I can well imagine the trouble you could cause.
I find it dreadfully amusing when you pick up an error in my posts.
I was using my phone this morning.
The small keys do cause some difficulty, as does predictive text .
The number of times you make reference to my alleged, supposed and " are you sure, teaching profession is also amusing.
Happy faces were used to reward children's good work.
One to you for brightening my day. ?{)(**
Can I remind you it was you who first corrected me with your yuk post....a word which was also spelled wrong. Word of advice, when you attempt to make someone look small make sure you don’t simply make yourself look stupid.
I am so glad I brightened your day...unfortunately the feeling is not reciprocated 8(8-))
-
Can I remind you it was you who first corrected me with your yuk post....a word which was also spelled wrong. Word of advice, when you attempt to make someone look small make sure you don’t simply make yourself look stupid.
I am so glad I brightened your day...unfortunately the feeling is not reciprocated 8(8-))
I believe our exchange of posts only leave one person looking stupid.
And that is the person who has made posts containing vulgar language and ageism.
-
Yes, both forces have said they are not suspects.
They never said they weren't Prime suspects though, or that they didn't do it.
Correct.
The police have said they are not suspects.
Are you waiting for the police to say that they are Prime suspects or that they did do it?
-
Correct.
The police have said they are not suspects.
Are you waiting for the police to say that they are Prime suspects or that they did do it?
I'm waiting for the police to find the abductor.
I get the impression most of the members here will have passed on before that ever happens.
-
You can also think about it this way. Were they going to up to the Millennium again and leave the kids in an unlocked apartment and dash back every 30 minutes? Kate doesn't go into those details.
Now you are being silly.
-
Does this video prove that the parents were prepared to lie to the public about what happened that night?
If not, why not?
I think they are admitting to a truth that you have yet to comprehend.
-
I believe our exchange of posts only leave one person looking stupid.
And that is the person who has made posts containing vulgar language and ageism.
The language was only vulgar in your mind as I have clearly illustrated... to anyone else it was simply another way of saying ‘whatever pleases you ‘. That you had to descend to the gutter to score a point says it all really.
Yuck !!!
-
I have an opinion on what those words prove, that's why I asked the question?
Forget that opinion and start again from the premise they were telling the truth.
This truth being?
That the McCanns at least had thought of taking their kids through to the Millennium that night as they say they did.
-
The language was only vulgar in your mind as I have clearly illustrated... to anyone else it was simply another way of saying ‘whatever pleases you ‘. That you had to descend to the gutter to score a point says it all really.
Yuck !!!
No. I looked the phrase up and the meaning was vulgar.
Nothing else to be said.
-
No. I looked the phrase up and the meaning was vulgar.
End of.
The first link when you google the phrase is the urban dictionary...and several links after that the same definition.
-
You just don't get it, do you? If they both say @ 2.36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFL6Jown0LE it rules the other two possibilities out because we know they both KNEW they had a block booking for the whole week.
UNLESS you're suggesting no one ever told them about the booking prior to the Thursday. Is that what you are suggesting? You're credibility is on the line with this one?
You can cancel a booking.
-
Do you see her disagreeing? Do you see her enforcing the claim or is that my imagination playing tricks on me?
I saw her agreeing with Gerry (in body language). She was a bit uncomfortable about Gerry owning up to this incident but she wasn't moving her head side to side saying (in body language) "no it never happened".
Coooeeee, we're not talking about what can happen, we're talking about what DID happen.
No cancellations or requests for cancellations in the files. There would be.
You are not looking at the booking but more the seating plan.
-
Has the ban to links to HiDeHo’s propaganda videos been lifted now? What a coup for the sceptics, and a few extra pence in the old woman’s kitty. @)(++(*
Are you finally admitting to have been here before? When did this ban come into force?
-
Well if you aren't going to watch it I'll fill you in on the detail.
Gerry lied about the reason for his return to Portugal, the end.
Which video was that again?
-
Well if you aren't going to watch it I'll fill you in on the detail.
Gerry lied about the reason for his return to Portugal, the end.
Gosh, wow, amazing.
-
I wonder why there aren't any Pro-McCann videos on youtube, displaying how honest & trustworthy the couple are?
Because there is no need and because there is no supporter sad enough to consider churning out such pointless propaganda. We live in the real world.
-
That's where you're credibility is falling apart IMO.
When a child is reported missing, as in STILL missing, and her mother and father have been proven to have lied to the public about what happened, what credible person in their right mind, would consider such a thing as a 'non-issue'?
Do you know, I am positively delighted to know that you think my credibility is falling apart. If you thought I had any credibility I would really start worrying.
-
That's a very short explanation that.
I heard them saying something about taking the kids along to the Millennium, didn't I?
-
This truth being? They knew they were always booked into the tapas.
That might be what the others (Tapas 7) were saying. Only the McCanns had residents living above them complaining to the management.
-
Rob, you cannot simply factor the known facts out of an equation. We know they block booked the tapas and we also know, sometime later they told a TV crew they didn't think were going to get in.
Which to me suggests someone in the OC management had possibly threatened to cancel their so called block booking.
Was that after the thought they ALMOST had or before?
I would have to check the video again. Have you got the link up?
-
Are you finally admitting to have been here before? When did this ban come into force?
No idea, ask John. Of course I’ve been here before, I have never denied it. The first thing I did when I rejoined the forum was to contact John to tell him my previous forum ID. I made no attempt to disguise my posting style and was not remotely surprised when sceptics started trying to goad me with my previous user name, gosh they are so clever and wise. They still get their kicks out doing so, one im particular has added my previous forum name to their signature line in a pathetic attempt to upset me. Sadly for him, I find his attempt utterly hilarious. I obviously made a mark last time, and continue to ruffle feathers to this day. 8(>((
-
The question is, WHY LIE? It might not be so bad if they were any good at it. 8(0(*
Pretty damn good at it, comsidering they remain free 13 years later and the body has never been recovered. i would say they were positively masterful ;-)
-
Even if you do cancel a booking, what would make you ever think you might not get in?
Think first, post second!
Did you know there was a limit to the number of Mark Warner clients the Tapas Restaurant was allowed to take per night? Once that limit is exceeded clients had to collect their meals in a dine out fashion (i.e. takeaways).
-
No idea, ask John. Of course I’ve been here before, I have never denied it. The first thing I did when I rejoined the forum was to contact John to tell him my previous forum ID. I made no attempt to disguise my posting style and was not remotely surprised when sceptics started trying to goad me with my previous user name, gosh they are so clever and wise. They still get their kicks out doing so, one im particular has added my previous forum name to their signature line in a pathetic attempt to upset me. Sadly for him, I find his attempt utterly hilarious. I obviously made a mark last time, and continue to ruffle feathers to this day. 8(>((
OK I have only seen people question you about this, and never saw you answer them.
-
Has the ban to links to HiDeHo’s propaganda videos been lifted now? What a coup for the sceptics, and a few extra pence in the old woman’s kitty. @)(++(*
There certainly was a good reason for having a ban in the first place. I've just had a read here and the duplicity the woman employs is mind boggling. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4640.msg31584#msg31584
I read somewhere that her facebook group had organised a campaign directed against this forum of rot from within.
Now that really does have the ring of truth to it.
-
OK I have only seen people question you about this, and never saw you answer them.
Why should I have to?
-
OK I have only seen people question you about this, and never saw you answer them.
This is against forum rules.
-
Why should I have to?
It was up to you, but I was curious as to the answer.
-
This is against forum rules.
A person is allowed to admit to what they feel comfortable with. That was a ruling too.
No ruling will stop me being curious.
-
@2.36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFL6Jown0LE
Pretty damn good at it? Aye, getting caught.
&^&*%
The words written in the video are someone's opinion not fact.
-
What difference does giving us an explanation of the reason why they block booked the tapas make to anything.? Their booking WAS ACCEPTED on the Sunday for the whole week?
I definitely give up this time, the missus is in.
&^&*%
Hey, IMO, I believe that block booking was against the rules established between the two firms MW and OC. Someone may have bent the rules, but if a higher Manager found out the so called block booking did not exist.
Has someone from Ocean Club admitted the Tapas 9 had an approved block booking for the week?
-
Hey, IMO, I believe that block booking was against the rules established between the two firms MW and OC. Someone may have bent the rules, but if a higher Manager found out the so called block booking did not exist.
Has someone from Ocean Club admitted the Tapas 9 had an approved block booking for the week?
It has always struck me as odd having this booked for the whole week, By their own admissions they were planning on going elsewhere that night. Why book something in advance knowing that they were going to unlikely stick to the same regime?
-
It has always struck me as odd having this booked for the whole week, By their own admissions they were planning on going elsewhere that night. Why book something in advance knowing that they were going to unlikely stick to the same regime?
Bookings can be like "provisional" or "pencilled in" or "confirmed". Even though they had a block booking they still had to ring every morning, so technically someone else could beat them to it and book in before they did.
-
@2.36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFL6Jown0LE
Pretty damn good at it? Aye, getting caught.
&^&*%
They haven’t been caught, they haven’t been arrested, never mind charged, never mind found guilty. If it ever becomes illegal to say you thought you wern’t going to get a table after making a week long booking opin the same restaurant then that might change. Until then.... (&^&
-
Bookings can be like "provisional" or "pencilled in" or "confirmed". Even though they had a block booking they still had to ring every morning, so technically someone else could beat them to it and book in before they did.
Is there a cite for the bolded bit please?
-
The thread is titled "Why Should We believe the parents"
Now we have an admission from YOU that they said they thought they might not get into the tapas when they knew they had 'a week long booking' says it all. We can NOT believe them with an admission like that. Cheers.
It's cost you, your credibility. I just hope it's worth it.
I can live with it, don’t worry. @)(++(*
-
It's your credibility, why should I worry?
You have to live with it, it's too late now. 8(0(*
You’re getting boringly repetitive again...
-
And you are Miss Excitingly Original are you? *%87
Look, go and snuggle up to the missus instead of chatting rubbish to me, eh? There’s a good Monkey... &^&*%
-
I'm with him. (ty6e[
Sorry, I’m not getting into a menagerie a trois with the Monkey and the Monkey’s missus. &^&*%
-
&^&*% and she says &^&*% too.
Imagine losing your credibility.
You can't accept anything as credible from people who are incapable accepting the truth. That's you.
Your credibility has crumbled IMO.
Pity! I did warn you.
And night night, don't let those abductors bite.
with the best intentions...how can anyone calling himself cheeky monkey talk about loss of credibility
-
Rob I'm at the end of my tether with you. @2.36 until 3.38 are the words of Kate and Gerry McCann.
Sorry to say, you've just been placed on the rubber ear list. &^&*%
Fair enough but what I stated was a fact "The words written in the video are someone's opinion not fact."
"2.36 until 3.38 are the words of Kate and Gerry McCann". IMO are the truthful words of Gerry and Kate McCann.
-
Is there a cite for the bolded bit please?
Wasn't it Rachael who had that task? I've seen it before, and we've discussed it before.
-
&^&*% and she says &^&*% too.
Imagine losing your credibility.
You can't accept anything as credible from people who are incapable accepting the truth. That's you.
Your credibility has crumbled IMO.
Pity! I did warn you.
And night night, don't let those abductors bite.
Anyone would think you were trying to goad me. @)(++(*. As I’ve made it clear before I really am very comfortable with my perceived lack of credibility amongst the sceptic community on this forum but if you must keep going on and on about my crumbling credibility then do feel free. It makes a change from Gerry’s credibility being called into question anyway.
-
with the best intentions...how can anyone calling himself cheeky monkey talk about loss of credibility
I think there is a rule against making fun of someone's name. Tempting as it is. It must at least be an ad hominem logical fallacy argument.
-
Wasn't it Rachael who had that task? I've seen it before, and we've discussed it before.
You bet we have...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7221.0
Obviously it’s a massively significant issue, one that demands repeated analysis and debate on a regular basis. (&^&
-
I think there is a rule against making fun of someone's name. Tempting as it is. It must at least be an ad hominem logical fallacy argument.
its a bit of humour rob... I quite like cheeky monkey ...seems every post I make breaks some rule ..and if it doesnt you make arule up....has cheeky monkey complained..
-
Wasn't it Rachael who had that task? I've seen it before, and we've discussed it before.
Does this mean even though they had a block booking in principle they still had to ring in every morning because of the rules?
From http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
"Reply 'And then the evening yes, so on that, cos the Sunday night had worked well with us sort of eating dinner as adults and you know just going back to check on the children, erm that, but at the Tapas, they said they, you could only book in the morning, you couldn't kind of block book or anything like that, you had to kind of call them at you know, eight or nine o'clock and say that you wanted a table for that night, erm and because we were a big group of nine, erm I begged and pleaded with them to let us book for the whole week, a table at eight thirty every night, erm'.
00.36.51 1578 'When did you do that''
Reply 'Because otherwise'.
1578 'No sorry, when''
Reply 'Oh when, that was on the Monday morning, erm because you know otherwise we, it would have just been really difficult to, well have a, have dinner in peace and erm, er you know we couldn't really have gone anywhere else cos oh yeah, we'd have had, I'd have to take the children or put them, there was a like a creche you could put them in, in the evening when you went to dinner but you know we were all kind of, you know the kids generally go to bed at seven thirty and they're tired out, they need to sleep but if they went somewhere else, they wouldn't have slept and erm, and you would have been up late, so we didn't want to do that and you know the Tapas was there and you know the apartment, you know we could see the apartments just there, you know it was only sort of you know, birds eye view was only sort of you know, thirty metres or something like that, so erm and you know, and we kept going and checking, so that seemed like kind of a good option'. "
She says she "begged and pleaded with them to let us book for the whole week, a table at eight thirty every night" but did anyone actually agree to that when it was against the rules?
-
Does this mean even though they had a block booking in principle they still had to ring in every morning because of the rules?
From http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
"Reply 'And then the evening yes, so on that, cos the Sunday night had worked well with us sort of eating dinner as adults and you know just going back to check on the children, erm that, but at the Tapas, they said they, you could only book in the morning, you couldn't kind of block book or anything like that, you had to kind of call them at you know, eight or nine o'clock and say that you wanted a table for that night, erm and because we were a big group of nine, erm I begged and pleaded with them to let us book for the whole week, a table at eight thirty every night, erm'.
00.36.51 1578 'When did you do that''
Reply 'Because otherwise'.
1578 'No sorry, when''
Reply 'Oh when, that was on the Monday morning, erm because you know otherwise we, it would have just been really difficult to, well have a, have dinner in peace and erm, er you know we couldn't really have gone anywhere else cos oh yeah, we'd have had, I'd have to take the children or put them, there was a like a creche you could put them in, in the evening when you went to dinner but you know we were all kind of, you know the kids generally go to bed at seven thirty and they're tired out, they need to sleep but if they went somewhere else, they wouldn't have slept and erm, and you would have been up late, so we didn't want to do that and you know the Tapas was there and you know the apartment, you know we could see the apartments just there, you know it was only sort of you know, birds eye view was only sort of you know, thirty metres or something like that, so erm and you know, and we kept going and checking, so that seemed like kind of a good option'. "
She says she "begged and pleaded with them to let us book for the whole week, a table at eight thirty every night" but did anyone actually agree to that when it was against the rules?
Is block booking an offence under the portuguese criminal code..lol
-
Is block booking an offence under the portuguese criminal code..lol
No but you ought to abide by the rules set by the host.
-
NoI didn't know that he was a vet.
I assume that he has made that information public on the forum?
When I resigned from my profession, I was asked what do I want to do, and I said "I want to solve the McCann case". It has been 3 years now. 3 years without an income. That set me back a bit but I still think it is possible. It is a matter of discovering how it can be done.
It wasn't that I wanted to be a moderator but this is a learning process as well. So lately it is is less study and more moderating the best forum by far that is discussing the case.
-
When I resigned from my profession, I was asked what do I want to do, and I said "I want to solve the McCann case". It has been 3 years now. 3 years without an income. That set me back a bit but I still think it is possible. It is a matter of discovering how it can be done.
It wasn't that I wanted to be a moderator but this is a learning process as well. So lately it is is less study and more moderating the best forum by far that is discussing the case.
I rest my case..best of luck Rob
-
When I resigned from my profession, I was asked what do I want to do, and I said "I want to solve the McCann case". It has been 3 years now. 3 years without an income. That set me back a bit but I still think it is possible. It is a matter of discovering how it can be done.
It wasn't that I wanted to be a moderator but this is a learning process as well. So lately it is is less study and more moderating the best forum by far that is discussing the case.
I do believe that you cannot solve Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Whatever way you try to swing it, whoever sat in front of a TV camera and said what they said, are the stirrers.
Swing it?
Gerry said they didn't know if they would get into the Tapas, TRUE, they would have gone to the Millenium if they couldn't get into the Tapas TRUE.
Explain how Gerry is lying.
-
Swing it?
Gerry said they didn't know if they would get into the Tapas, TRUE, they would have gone to the Millenium if they couldn't get into the Tapas TRUE.
Explain how Gerry is lying.
But they did know that they could get into the tapas....there was a block booking made on Sunday by one of the tapas group.
-
When I resigned from my profession, I was asked what do I want to do, and I said "I want to solve the McCann case". It has been 3 years now. 3 years without an income. That set me back a bit but I still think it is possible. It is a matter of discovering how it can be done.
It wasn't that I wanted to be a moderator but this is a learning process as well. So lately it is is less study and more moderating the best forum by far that is discussing the case.
Imo there's much to be gained by a bunch of folk from all walks of life discussing these cases online. Some might have expertise relevant to the case, most don't. It doesn't matter everyone has something to offer by way of life experiences and lets not forget in the UK 12 ordinary members of the public decide who's guilty and who isn't at criminal trials albeit overseen by a judge. We have the advantage of looking at this case holistically without any commercial restraints. Experts will generally only consider what's relevant to their area of expertise which in the main is inconclusive without considering all the other strands.
Through posting about the Bamber case on the Injustice Anywhere forum I got to meet, online, with Charlie Wilkes (pseudonym) who played a pivitol role in the case of Amanda Knox. Charlie made the point of how much mileage there is in these cases being discussed online.
-
No but you ought to abide by the rules set by the host.
Maybe they were able to offer some flexi given it was low season.
KM details it in her book pages 70, 75, 399 and 40.
KM states the note in the reservation book stated the children were being left alone and they were carrying out checks hence their reason for wanting to eat at the Tapas. I thought the entry I saw just made mention of the booking? KM also claimed this book was available not only to staff but could potentially be seen by guests too?!
-
Imo there's much to be gained by a bunch of folk from all walks of life discussing these cases online. Some might have expertise relevant to the case, most don't. It doesn't matter everyone has something to offer by way of life experiences and lets not forget in the UK 12 ordinary members of the public decide who's guilty and who isn't at criminal trials albeit overseen by a judge. We have the advantage of looking at this case holistically without any commercial restraints. Experts will generally only consider what's relevant to their area of expertise which in the main is inconclusive without considering all the other strands.
Through posting about the Bamber case on the Injustice Anywhere forum I got to meet, online, with Charlie Wilkes (pseudonym) who played a pivitol role in the case of Amanda Knox. Charlie made the point of how much mileage there is in these cases being discussed online.
You’ve made a good point Holly. If a case was brought against the parents in this country they would be tried by a jury of their peers.....people just like you and I. I wonder how they’d fair ?
-
I do wish KM would stop insisting eating at the Tapas was akin to eating in someone's garden. It isn't. Most gardens have defined borders by definition are inaccessible to the public which is not the case with apartment 5a.
-
You’ve made a good point Holly. If a case was brought against the parents in this country they would be tried by a jury of their peers.....people just like you and I. I wonder how they’d fair ?
Hopefully that would very much depend on the evidence presented, not on any pre-conceived prejudices held by jury members.
-
You’ve made a good point Holly. If a case was brought against the parents in this country they would be tried by a jury of their peers.....people just like you and I. I wonder how they’d fair ?
I know very little about this case but at this moment in time I don't see the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could gather any evidence to bring about a criminal trial against the McCanns in connection with MM's disappearance, other than possibly neglect over leaving children that age unsupervised, but I'm happy to be corrected.
-
I know very little about this case but at this moment in time I don't see the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could gather any evidence to bring about a criminal trial against the McCanns in connection with MM's disappearance, other than possibly neglect over leaving children that age unsupervised, but I'm happy to be corrected.
As the so-called neglect occurred abroad I think they’d struggle tbh.
-
Fact..Gerry said that they weren’t sure that they’d get into the tapas bar that night...the files show us that the group had booked a table for every night that week...ergo, he lied.
Why he lied is opinion.....that he lied is not.
That he lied might just be opinion as well.
JT:
Reply “Well, I think, yeah, I mean, and we actually did have a conversation, it’s one of those ‘What ifs’ as well, I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in. So, we did, at that point, I can remember having this conversation was ‘Oh shall we go somewhere different’, but it never happened, but. And Kate was, I think Kate was there then, I can’t remember who else, but we did actually say ‘Oh shall we, shall we go somewhere different’. And I think almost at that point we had considered it, but I think the problem was the kids were so tired after having such full days, I think it was more ‘Well it’s worked every other night’. But I know definitely from my point of view I felt quite bad that we were taking this, you know, this block booking every night and it was affecting other people using it”.
4078 “What were the other options then for eating, was there a good option close by?”
Reply “No, it was just the Millennium, well in terms of ones that you wouldn’t have to pay extra for, it was the Millennium, which didn’t really start until, I think it was half seven or something, so, you know, by that stage it was, we could have, we could have gone there, so I think. And our kids are probably more, I don’t know, (inaudible) our kids as they are growing up, but we tend to drag our kids with us more, you know, they have never really had a certain bedtime as such, I think”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
I know very little about this case but at this moment in time I don't see the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could gather any evidence to bring about a criminal trial against the McCanns in connection with MM's disappearance, other than possibly neglect over leaving children that age unsupervised, but I'm happy to be corrected.
The UK judicial system has no jurisdiction to prosecute over a crime occurring abroad, except perhaps that of murder.
If it were proved that the McCanns were involved and knew she was dead, then they could be prosecuted for fraud
-
That he lied might just be opinion as well.
JT:
Reply “Well, I think, yeah, I mean, and we actually did have a conversation, it’s one of those ‘What ifs’ as well, I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in. So, we did, at that point, I can remember having this conversation was ‘Oh shall we go somewhere different’, but it never happened, but. And Kate was, I think Kate was there then, I can’t remember who else, but we did actually say ‘Oh shall we, shall we go somewhere different’. And I think almost at that point we had considered it, but I think the problem was the kids were so tired after having such full days, I think it was more ‘Well it’s worked every other night’. But I know definitely from my point of view I felt quite bad that we were taking this, you know, this block booking every night and it was affecting other people using it”.
4078 “What were the other options then for eating, was there a good option close by?”
Reply “No, it was just the Millennium, well in terms of ones that you wouldn’t have to pay extra for, it was the Millennium, which didn’t really start until, I think it was half seven or something, so, you know, by that stage it was, we could have, we could have gone there, so I think. And our kids are probably more, I don’t know, (inaudible) our kids as they are growing up, but we tend to drag our kids with us more, you know, they have never really had a certain bedtime as such, I think”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
nice find (except certain people will believe JT was briefed to say that just to support Gerry’s “lie” for reasons best known to themselves).
-
The UK judicial system has no jurisdiction to prosecute over a crime occurring abroad, except perhaps that of murder.
If it were proved that the McCanns were involved and knew she was dead, then they could be prosecuted for fraud
Yes I was just talking hypothetically.
For those who believe the McCanns had some hand in MM's disappearance, other than the crazy "childcare arrangements" what evidence supports your belief?
-
Yes I was just talking hypothetically.
For those who believe the McCanns had some hand in MM's disappearance, other than the crazy "childcare arrangements" what evidence supports your belief?
Oh gawd. It’s all here on the forum a thousand times over, where have you been all this time Senior Moderator??
-
Oh gawd. It’s all here on the forum a thousand times over, where have you been all this time Senior Moderator??
Lol on the Bamber board, Rettendon murders and Jill Dando.
I would be most grateful if someone could just bullet point the case as they see it against the parents. Thanks.
-
Lol on the Bamber board, Rettendon murders and Jill Dando.
I would be most grateful if someone could just bullet point the case as they see it against the parents. Thanks.
Perhaps start a new thread? One bullet point is that Gerry “lied” about being worried about not getting a table at the Tapas restaurant on the evening Madeleine disappeared. Most of the other bullet points are equally as unproven and tenuous, and borne out of a deep dislike of the parents, what they did a propos of leaving the kids alone, the way they look and sound, what they say, what they wear and where they live.
-
Perhaps start a new thread? One bullet point is that Gerry “lied” about being worried about not getting a table at the Tapas restaurant on the evening Madeleine disappeared. Most of the other bullet points are equally as unproven and tenuous, and borne out of a deep dislike of the parents, what they did a propos of leaving the kids alone, the way they look and sound, what they say, what they wear and where they live.
Ok so a lot of what might be considered anecdotal evidence. Not to be scoffed at some people work off intuition others more towards hard physical evidence. I think we need to look at both. I'll set up a new thread as you suggested.
-
Perhaps start a new thread? One bullet point is that Gerry “lied” about being worried about not getting a table at the Tapas restaurant on the evening Madeleine disappeared. Most of the other bullet points are equally as unproven and tenuous, and borne out of a deep dislike of the parents, what they did a propos of leaving the kids alone, the way they look and sound, what they say, what they wear and where they live.
Bit harsh. I'm sure there's plenty of us evil sceptics who don't 'deeply dislike' the parents. Maybe some do. And I couldn't give two short ones where they live, what they have for breakfast; I'm not interested.
-
Ok so a lot of what might be considered anecdotal evidence. Not to be scoffed at some people work off intuition others more towards hard physical evidence. I think we need to look at both. I'll set up a new thread as you suggested.
Not to be scoffed at as long as those making the claims realise that intuition isn't evidence... It might tell you where to look for evidence... But it isn't evidence.
Last year Pedro DA Carmo who was head if the PJ at the time said there is no evidence against the mccanns... That's pretty clear
-
What part of that little lot supports Gerry's lie? He says quite clearly they "we weren't sure we were going to get into the tapas "
JT; " And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by BOOKING it."
That's not support of it, that's confirmation of it. He knew they were going to get in. REMEMBER?
It shows that there was a question mark over whether or not they would get a table that night which was discussed within the group and the Millenium discussed as an alternative, exactly as Gerry said.
-
Bit harsh. I'm sure there's plenty of us evil sceptics who don't 'deeply dislike' the parents. Maybe some do. And I couldn't give two short ones where they live, what they have for breakfast; I'm not interested.
I don't believe you do General.
But some here do!
-
Bit harsh. I'm sure there's plenty of us evil sceptics who don't 'deeply dislike' the parents. Maybe some do. And I couldn't give two short ones where they live, what they have for breakfast; I'm not interested.
Really? Most sceptics certainly give the impression that they deeply dislike the McCanns for one reason or another.
-
It shows that there was a question mark over whether or not they would get a table that night which was discussed within the group and the Millenium discussed as an alternative, exactly as Gerry said.
I think the only issue at stake here is establishing the concept that Gerry has potentially lied about a fundamental fact. I'm not convinced it has any relevance beyond that. And even then, well, we all lie, so it only establishes that.
Unless I'm reading this wrong.
-
I think the only issue at stake here is establishing the concept that Gerry has potentially lied about a fundamental fact. I'm not convinced it has any relevance beyond that. And even then, well, we all lie, so it only establishes that.
Unless I'm reading this wrong.
JT’s rog backs up his claim.
-
JT’s rog backs up his claim.
Sound. Move on.
-
That he lied might just be opinion as well.
JT:
Reply “Well, I think, yeah, I mean, and we actually did have a conversation, it’s one of those ‘What ifs’ as well, I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in. So, we did, at that point, I can remember having this conversation was ‘Oh shall we go somewhere different’, but it never happened, but. And Kate was, I think Kate was there then, I can’t remember who else, but we did actually say ‘Oh shall we, shall we go somewhere different’. And I think almost at that point we had considered it, but I think the problem was the kids were so tired after having such full days, I think it was more ‘Well it’s worked every other night’. But I know definitely from my point of view I felt quite bad that we were taking this, you know, this block booking every night and it was affecting other people using it”.
4078 “What were the other options then for eating, was there a good option close by?”
Reply “No, it was just the Millennium, well in terms of ones that you wouldn’t have to pay extra for, it was the Millennium, which didn’t really start until, I think it was half seven or something, so, you know, by that stage it was, we could have, we could have gone there, so I think. And our kids are probably more, I don’t know, (inaudible) our kids as they are growing up, but we tend to drag our kids with us more, you know, they have never really had a certain bedtime as such, I think”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Gerry claimed that they nearly never got into the tapas restaurant.
-
Sound. Move on.
I believe you should be addressing your "move on " remark to those who began the thread and have promoted this supposed lie and who will not accept Carana's post as evidence that he did not lie.
But perhaps your post was a command to all?
-
Gerry claimed that they nearly never got into the tapas restaurant. That is a lie.
That statement, apart from making Jane seem a bit simple, makes me wonder if someone went up and started stamping their feet with the Tapas Bar management?
-
That statement, apart from making Jane seem a bit simple, makes me wonder if someone went up and started stamping their feet with the Tapas Bar management?
Why would someone have to go up to the Tapas Bar Management and stamp their feet if they knew their block booking was secure ?
-
That he lied might just be opinion as well.
JT:
Reply “Well, I think, yeah, I mean, and we actually did have a conversation, it’s one of those ‘What ifs’ as well, I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in. So, we did, at that point, I can remember having this conversation was ‘Oh shall we go somewhere different’, but it never happened, but. And Kate was, I think Kate was there then, I can’t remember who else, but we did actually say ‘Oh shall we, shall we go somewhere different’. And I think almost at that point we had considered it, but I think the problem was the kids were so tired after having such full days, I think it was more ‘Well it’s worked every other night’. But I know definitely from my point of view I felt quite bad that we were taking this, you know, this block booking every night and it was affecting other people using it”.
4078 “What were the other options then for eating, was there a good option close by?”
Reply “No, it was just the Millennium, well in terms of ones that you wouldn’t have to pay extra for, it was the Millennium, which didn’t really start until, I think it was half seven or something, so, you know, by that stage it was, we could have, we could have gone there, so I think. And our kids are probably more, I don’t know, (inaudible) our kids as they are growing up, but we tend to drag our kids with us more, you know, they have never really had a certain bedtime as such, I think”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Congratulations! You appear to be the only one who is able to produce evidence rather than speculation.
-
Why would someone have to go up to the Tapas Bar Management and stamp their feet if they knew their block booking was secure ?
Did I read the inference wrong? Hang on......
I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in.
That reads like they were initially told to foxtrot oscar to me. Someone intervened.
Is it relevant? Probably not.
-
Did I read the inference wrong? Hang on......
Not for too long...
Going out for lunch.
Need to get some glamour on........
-
Did I read the inference wrong? Hang on......
I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in.
That reads like they were initially told to foxtrot oscar to me. Someone intervened.
Is it relevant? Probably not.
So block bookings were not guaranteed each evening?
-
Did I read the inference wrong? Hang on......
I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in.
That reads like they were initially told to foxtrot oscar to me. Someone intervened.
Is it relevant? Probably not.
This is other people trying to get into the Tapas?
-
Congratulations! You appear to be the only one who is able to produce evidence rather than speculation.
Seems to me like you were keeping quiet waiting for this evidence to be brought forward, seeing as how you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything to do with this case.
-
So block bookings were not guaranteed each evening?
I'm not sure. She's sort of saying there was some drama about the block booking, but then they relented for some reason. But she was worried about how this was impacting on other customers? Or were the management worried about other customers?
-
Gerry claimed that they nearly never got into the tapas restaurant.
Exact words please.
-
This is other people trying to get into the Tapas?
Had the other people booked?
It appears they hard, but their booking appeared not to be guaranteed?
-
This is other people trying to get into the Tapas?
I'm not sure. She seems reluctant to elucidate. It sounds like she's describing a minor difference of opinion, or misunderstanding that required resolution - at the potential disruption to other diners. The management may have been reluctant to show preferential treatment to such a large group, despite it being potentially lucrative.
-
It's shows there was never a question mark about Gerry thinking they were not going to get in, that's the point. It shows they knew they were always booked in. So he can hardly be telling the truth then can he?
They don't seem too upset about that fatal decision in the video do they? Why ever not, if it's true?
Can you explain how it shows that there was never any question of them getting in when Jane says:
"I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full".
and
"So, we did, at that point, I can remember having this conversation was ‘Oh shall we go somewhere different’, but it never happened, but. And Kate was, I think Kate was there then, I can’t remember who else, but we did actually say ‘Oh shall we, shall we go somewhere different’. And I think almost at that point we had considered it"
Talk about splitters...
-
Had the other people booked?
It appears they hard, but their booking appeared not to be guaranteed?
It sounds like people complaining they couldn’t get in when following the 9am booking process.
-
It sounds like people complaining they couldn’t get in when following the 9am booking process.
Ah, OK, so they perhaps didn't follow protocol, but managed to get in regardless? Brits abroad, it's safe to assume that that would have gone down like a fart in a Soyuz.
-
It sounds like people complaining they couldn’t get in when following the 9am booking process.
It's clear there was a discussion about whether or not to go elsewhere for dinner on the Thursday night, as Gerry stated. If anyone can explain why this issue is of such vital import and why anyone thinks Gerry would deliberately lie about such a thing perhaps they could explain the advantage it conferred on him to do so?
-
Ah, OK, so they perhaps didn't follow protocol, but managed to get in regardless? Brits abroad, it's safe to assume that that would have gone down like a fart in a Soyuz.
I think there is confusion around who is complaining. JT says people from the Tennis Group not the T9.
-
I think there is confusion around who is complaining. JT says people from the Tennis Group not the T9.
And it's important because...?
-
Seems to me like you were keeping quiet waiting for this evidence to be brought forward, seeing as how you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything to do with this case.
I was indeed. I also kept quiet about this;
A little later, near the sun-loungers at the Tapas end of the swimming pool, some of our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening and take the kids to the Millennium instead. We’d heard that another couple we’d met had tried unsuccessfully to book a table at the Tapas restaurant and we wondered whether it was fair of us to be taking over the place. Although the restaurant was accepting other reservations, our party of nine occupied most of the available places and I, for one, felt rather guilty about that. However, when someone pointed out that we’d be gone by Saturday whereas this family was staying on for another week, it didn’t seem quite so unreasonable, and we decided to stick with our original plan. {madleine Kate McCann}
-
Did I read the inference wrong? Hang on......
I can remember on the morning of the, Thursday morning by the tennis, at the tennis, somebody in our tennis group had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full. And I can remember thinking at that point, and I just felt, you know, ‘Good’, because they were bloomin’ awkward by booking it out. And they were sort of saying well it’s a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t have got in because they’d booked, they’d tried to book in, you know, they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in.
That reads like they were initially told to foxtrot oscar to me. Someone intervened.
Is it relevant? Probably not.
IMO it is an incident like this that sparked the disappearance off. There are MW Clients annoyed they couldn't go to the Tapas as a group since another group had blocked booked the seating for the week just so they can have easier child care minding arrangements. To me that find by Carana and the admission by Gerry is so significant.
Obviously they didn't plan a kidnapping, but something else, as pay back possibly, and the event went wrong.
It sort of fits my theory.
-
I was indeed. I also kept quiet about this;
A little later, near the sun-loungers at the Tapas end of the swimming pool, some of our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening and take the kids to the Millennium instead. We’d heard that another couple we’d met had tried unsuccessfully to book a table at the Tapas restaurant and we wondered whether it was fair of us to be taking over the place. Although the restaurant was accepting other reservations, our party of nine occupied most of the available places and I, for one, felt rather guilty about that. However, when someone pointed out that we’d be gone by Saturday whereas this family was staying on for another week, it didn’t seem quite so unreasonable, and we decided to stick with our original plan. {madleine Kate McCann}
Did that family stay for another week or leave early?
-
Did that family stay for another week or leave early?
Is that the only element you could pick out of that paragraph?
What difference does it make?
-
Is that the only element you could pick out of that paragraph?
What difference does it make?
It is often seen in criminal cases the suspect leaves town, or goes across the border to a different state, things like that.
-
Kate McCann: "our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening."
Gerry McCann: "I think the worst thing is.. we kinda...sigh... almost thought about not going. And erm did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the tapas, REMEMBER?"
OK a version of the truth???
-
OK a version of the truth???
Or bad fiction.
You don't almost think of doing something, you either think about it or you don't
-
I've always split the McCanns. I believe Kate told the truth as she knew it and Gerry well I've never fully trusted him.
I'm a bit unsure what I can say as a moderator. So I'm OK with that.
-
Or bad fiction.
You don't almost think of doing something, you either think about it or you don't
There is almost saying something. You might think up something pearl of wisdom but decide to let it slide.
Whether that is almost thought of something who knows. Maybe it a male thing?
-
Congratulations! You appear to be the only one who is able to produce evidence rather than speculation.
Is that meant to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek comment? :)
I'm certainly not the only one, of any persuasion, who tries to find cites.
-
I was indeed. I also kept quiet about this;
A little later, near the sun-loungers at the Tapas end of the swimming pool, some of our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening and take the kids to the Millennium instead. We’d heard that another couple we’d met had tried unsuccessfully to book a table at the Tapas restaurant and we wondered whether it was fair of us to be taking over the place. Although the restaurant was accepting other reservations, our party of nine occupied most of the available places and I, for one, felt rather guilty about that. However, when someone pointed out that we’d be gone by Saturday whereas this family was staying on for another week, it didn’t seem quite so unreasonable, and we decided to stick with our original plan. {madleine Kate McCann}
That's fair of you.
I don't see what the fuss is about for some posters. Whether Gerry thought that there was an issue as to whether they'd get in or not, there was apparently a discussion as to whether they ought to let others dine there that night and go to the Millenium.
Not sure if someone else had considered a night in, or not. Kate? Not sure.
For me, I found the main point to be sadly ironic: if they had ended up choosing other dining arrangements that evening, they would have been with the kids.
-
Is that meant to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek comment? :)
I'm certainly not the only one, of any persuasion, who tries to find cites.
You were the only one who produced the relevant cite though. weren't you?
-
Kate McCann: "our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening."
Gerry McCann: "I think the worst thing is.. we kinda...sigh... almost thought about not going. And erm did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the tapas, REMEMBER?"
Is that the sound of a barrel being scraped?
-
I think the only issue at stake here is establishing the concept that Gerry has potentially lied about a fundamental fact. I'm not convinced it has any relevance beyond that. And even then, well, we all lie, so it only establishes that.
Unless I'm reading this wrong.
Speak for yourself
-
Her knowledge on the case is a real asset to the forum, don't you think?
I think it was rather deceitful of her to keep quiet to try and preserve the credibility of her “team”. Presumably had Carana not posted this confirmation that Gerry was not lying, you’d all still be convinced he did. Oh hang on, in the face of the evidence to the contrary you still are! @)(++(*
-
Speak for yourself
You've never lied? Ever?
-
Speak for yourself
Erngath yesterday
‘I lie every day!’
-
Erngath yesterday
‘I lie every day!’
As do I. Horizontally.
-
I think it was rather deceitful of her to keep quiet to try and preserve the credibility of her “team”. Presumably had Carana not posted this confirmation that Gerry was not lying, you’d all still be convinced he did. Oh hang on, in the face of the evidence to the contrary you still are! @)(++(*
So you think I'm decietful and you think you know why? I think you're barking up the wrong trees.
Carana's post didn't confirm that Gerry wasn't lyiing. He said;
"we weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas; remember?"
Did anyone else say that? No, they said they thought of cancelling their booking.
-
Is that meant to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek comment? :)
I'm certainly not the only one, of any persuasion, who tries to find cites.
But you did do well here. Take it as a big compliment.
-
But you did do well here. Take it as a big compliment.
It was indeed a compliment.
-
It was indeed a compliment.
Aw, shucks. Thank you. LOL
-
Aw, shucks. Thank you. LOL
Get back to work finding cites goddammit.
-
Or bad fiction.
You don't almost think of doing something, you either think about it or you don't
Yeah it seems to come from that same bag of tricks 'it felt safe' well hw could they possibley know it felt safe while here in the UK? They planned to keave the children alone every night even before they left the UK.
Oh like sitting in the garden... It is a cultural thing... defence, defence, defence.
-
Aw, shucks. Thank you. LOL
You're welcome. Your knowledge of the PJ files is impressive imo.
-
Yeah it seems to come from that same bag of tricks 'it felt safe' well hw could they possibley know it felt safe while here in the UK? They planned to keave the children alone every night even before they left the UK.
Oh like sitting in the garden... It is a cultural thing... defence, defence, defence.
There's always the possibility, of course, that Gerry let slip the truth. Perhaps they were in danger of their booking beng cancelled by others, rather than by themselves?
-
There's always the possibility, of course, that Gerry let slip the truth. Perhaps they were in danger of their booking beng cancelled by others, rather than by themselves?
but that is not how it comes across to me...it is as if he is saying well it was just bad luck or something of that ilk.
-
So you think I'm decietful and you think you know why? I think you're barking up the wrong trees.
Carana's post didn't confirm that Gerry wasn't lyiing. He said;
"we weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas; remember?"
Did anyone else say that? No, they said they thought of cancelling their booking.
I don’t think I’m barking up the wrong tree and I do think Carana’s cite is very strong evidence that Gerry was not guilty of lying or of ruining his credibility with his comment as was suggested by the OP..
-
There's always the possibility, of course, that Gerry let slip the truth. Perhaps they were in danger of their booking beng cancelled by others, rather than by themselves?
Didn't Gerry say to Jez that if they hadn’t been with their group he wouldn’t be going to the tapas ? No mention of their booking being a bit uncertain. In fact no mention from any of the group in any of their statements that there was the possibility that their booking wasn’t secure.
-
Didn't Gerry say to Jez that if they hadn’t been with their group he wouldn’t be going to the tapas ? No mention of their booking being a bit uncertain. In fact no mention from any of the group in any of their statements that there was the possibility that their booking wasn’t secure.
There was uncertainty about where the group were going to eat that night. That is not a lie. You are taking pointless pedantry to new heights.
-
Erngath yesterday
‘I lie every day!’
Picking on me again. @)(++(*
I do and I did tonight.
I'm just in from a concert performed by High School pupils.
I told them that they all were wonderful.
Actually they weren't all wonderful.
Most were but not all!
Another lie!
-
Picking on me again. @)(++(*
I do and I did tonight.
I'm just in from a concert performed by High School pupils.
I told them that they all were wonderful.
Actually they weren't all wonderful.
Most were but not all!
Another lie!
I’m afraid you, I and the general are failed souls....Sadie however is cut from different cloth.
As to your concert, sometimes a lie is kinder.
-
I don’t think I’m barking up the wrong tree and I do think Carana’s cite is very strong evidence that Gerry was not guilty of lying or of ruining his credibility with his comment as was suggested by the OP..
Are you saying he didn't contradict what his wife and Jane said? Let's pretend to be flies on a wall.
Gerry; we weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas.
Kate; we were sure we were going to get into the Tapas; we had a booking every evening at 8:30.
Gerry; why did we discuss going to the Millennium then?
Kate and Jane; because we thought of cancelling our booking.
-
Are you saying he didn't contradict what his wife and Jane said? Let's pretend to be flies on a wall.
Gerry; we weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas.
Kate; we were sure we were going to get into the Tapas; we had a booking every evening at 8:30.
Gerry; why did we discuss going to the Millennium then?
Kate and Jane; because we thought of cancelling our booking.
I thought you dealt in facts alone?
-
I really don’t understand why this has become such an important issue for some. It is clear that Gerry was beating himself up for the decision they had made to eat at the Tapas that night, a decision which was almost overturned during a discussion earlier in the day, which therefore made subsequent events even more poignant and unbearable. Whether it was because their booking was in doubt or they considered cancelling is really neither here nor there - Gerry confers no advantage to himself whatsoever by claiming the former over the latter, in fact this revelation only heightens the sense of guilt which he must have felt and to which he was owning up to in the interview. Calling him a liar is just spiteful name-calling and reveals far more about those starting threads about it on forums 12 years later than it does about Gerry McCann. IMO.
-
I really don’t understand why this has become such an important issue for some. It is clear that Gerry was beating himself up for the decision they had made to eat at the Tapas that night, a decision which was almost overturned during a discussion earlier in the day, which therefore made subsequent events even more poignant and unbearable. Whether it was because their booking was in doubt or they considered cancelling is really neither here nor there - Gerry confers no advantage to himself whatsoever by claiming the former over the latter, in fact this revelation only heightens the sense of guilt which he must have felt and to which he was owning up to in the interview. Calling him a liar is just spiteful name-calling and reveals far more about those starting threads about it on forums 12 years later than it does about Gerry McCann. IMO.
So we are taking Jane’s garbled statement as proof that there was a serious discussion of the T9 eating elsewhere?
-
So we are taking Jane’s garbled statement as proof that there was a serious discussion of the T9 eating elsewhere?
Give me one good reason why we shouldn’t.
-
Give me one good reason why we shouldn’t.
Because her statement doesn’t say that.
-
Because her statement doesn’t say that.
Yes it does.
-
Yes it does.
Her comments about the “discussion”...
So, we did, at that point, I can remember having this conversation was ‘Oh shall we go somewhere different’, but it never happened, but .... we did actually say ‘Oh shall we, shall we go somewhere different’. And I think almost at that point we had considered it.
Not a serious discussion in my opinion. From my reading of Jane’s various statement it could even be a question from her.
-
Nice piece of retrofitting by Kate in her book. She obviously also saw the danger of her and her husband’s lie and sought to rectify it.
A little later, near the sun-loungers at the Tapas end of the swimming pool, some of our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening and take the kids to the Millennium instead. We’d heard that another couple we’d met had tried unsuccessfully to book a table at the Tapas restaurant and we wondered whether it was fair of us to be taking over the place. Although the restaurant was accepting other reservations, our party of nine occupied most of the available places and I, for one, felt rather guilty about that. However, when someone pointed out that we’d be gone by Saturday whereas this family was staying on for another week, it didn’t seem quite so unreasonable, and we decided to stick with our original plan. {madleine Kate McCann}
-
Her comments about the “discussion”...
Not a serious discussion in my opinion. From my reading of Jane’s various statement it could even be a question from her.
Oh so now it has to be a “serious” discussion, rather than just a discussion? Could you please elaborate on the differences between the two.
-
Nice piece of retrofitting by Kate in her book. She obviously also saw the danger of her and her husband’s lie and sought to rectify it.
A little later, near the sun-loungers at the Tapas end of the swimming pool, some of our group were discussing whether to cancel our dinner booking in the evening and take the kids to the Millennium instead. We’d heard that another couple we’d met had tried unsuccessfully to book a table at the Tapas restaurant and we wondered whether it was fair of us to be taking over the place. Although the restaurant was accepting other reservations, our party of nine occupied most of the available places and I, for one, felt rather guilty about that. However, when someone pointed out that we’d be gone by Saturday whereas this family was staying on for another week, it didn’t seem quite so unreasonable, and we decided to stick with our original plan. {madleine Kate McCann}
@)(++(* you are funny. What danger? JT’s rog backs her up too, was she lying as well? You seem to be under the impression that the whole world spends all their free time cross-referencing ever single word uttered and written by the McCanns to look for discrepancies. In reality it is only sceptics who do this, a small number of forum devotees like yourself.
-
Faith, why do you assume that Gerry was lying and that Kate was retro-fitting?
-
Just a few thoughts.
Personally, I like G-Unit's sig of Accept nothing, Believe no-one, Confirm everything. I can't remember the origin of that - is it a police motto?
For me, it implies staying objective, avoiding focusing solely on "hunches" or personal bias while trying to plod through fact-checking various possibilities.
That's fine in theory, but the fact is we're not robots. We're all humans with our differing kinds of life experiences / baggage that can influence our views.
I'm as guilty of that as anyone.
A few years ago, I was following the news about a different case involving a missing person, and eventually took part in a forum discussion about the case. A police "leak" about supposedly damning evidence led forumers to zoom in on a suspect like a swarm of bees. My immediate reaction was one of déjà vu.
I found myself in a tiny minority, but frequently accused of being an "apologist" for an "evident" murderer, simply because I'd found that the so-called damning evidence wasn't damning at all in the circumstances, and the missing person could have still been alive somewhere.
Then there were media allusions to a different type of "damning evidence", but it was so vague that it could be interpreted in various ways.
Finally, further evidence emerged that really couldn't have an innocent explanation.
At that point, I changed my mind. I said so and explained why, and I'm ok with that.
-
Faith, why do you assume that Gerry was lying and that Kate was retro-fitting?
Because their own words suggest it.
-
Because their own words suggest it.
In your rather biased opinion.
-
Just a few thoughts.
Personally, I like G-Unit's sig of Accept nothing, Believe no-one, Confirm everything. I can't remember the origin of that - is it a police motto?
For me, it implies staying objective, avoiding focusing solely on "hunches" or personal bias while trying to plod through fact-checking various possibilities.
That's fine in theory, but the fact is we're not robots. We're all humans with our differing kinds of life experiences / baggage that can influence our views.
I'm as guilty of that as anyone.
A few years ago, I was following the news about a different case involving a missing person, and eventually took part in a forum discussion about the case. A police "leak" about supposedly damning evidence led forumers to zoom in on a suspect like a swarm of bees. My immediate reaction was one of déjà vu.
I found myself in a tiny minority, but frequently accused of being an "apologist" for an "evident" murderer, simply because I'd found that the so-called damning evidence wasn't damning at all in the circumstances, and the missing person could have still been alive somewhere.
Then there were media allusions to a different type of "damning evidence", but it was so vague that it could be interpreted in various ways.
Finally, further evidence emerged that really couldn't have an innocent explanation.
At that point, I changed my mind. I said so and explained why, and I'm ok with that.
That Gerry and his wife lied ( re Gerry’s ‘virus’ ) is not damning per se. It does however suggest that nothing they say should simply be accepted as true.
-
Just a few thoughts.
Personally, I like G-Unit's sig of Accept nothing, Believe no-one, Confirm everything. I can't remember the origin of that - is it a police motto?
For me, it implies staying objective, avoiding focusing solely on "hunches" or personal bias while trying to plod through fact-checking various possibilities.
That's fine in theory, but the fact is we're not robots. We're all humans with our differing kinds of life experiences / baggage that can influence our views.
I'm as guilty of that as anyone.
A few years ago, I was following the news about a different case involving a missing person, and eventually took part in a forum discussion about the case. A police "leak" about supposedly damning evidence led forumers to zoom in on a suspect like a swarm of bees. My immediate reaction was one of déjà vu.
I found myself in a tiny minority, but frequently accused of being an "apologist" for an "evident" murderer, simply because I'd found that the so-called damning evidence wasn't damning at all in the circumstances, and the missing person could have still been alive somewhere.
Then there were media allusions to a different type of "damning evidence", but it was so vague that it could be interpreted in various ways.
Finally, further evidence emerged that really couldn't have an innocent explanation.
At that point, I changed my mind. I said so and explained why, and I'm ok with that.
ABC is a police instruction. I see it as very good advice, but difficult to follow.
-
ABC is a police instruction. I see it as very good advice, but difficult to follow.
It is very good advice for the police but dreadful advice for real life!
-
Too much Libel creeping in. I shall have to start Deleting if this carries on.
-
That Gerry and his wife lied ( re Gerry’s ‘virus’ ) is not damning per se. It does however suggest that nothing they say should simply be accepted as true.
"Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip."
" ... but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason ... "
__________________________________________________________________________________
As outlined in Kate's book ... Gerry had a stomach upset ... and judicial secrecy laws prevented discussion of the case.
What has been made of those simple sentences must indeed rank as among the most revealing of 'discussions' as to the paucity of the driving force behind the opprobrium directed day and daily towards this innocent couple.
I think it is all tommyrot but the good thing about it is that it is so revealing ... but not regarding Kate or Gerry.
-
That was added in after the Rothley meeting in a hotel and was an add on to the promotion of the crying incident in the video clip. IMO
Why is Kate not pretending to cry in the video? She's doing it at the crying incident. The nearly not going to the tapas would have made a real difference if they hadn't. wouldn't it? Where's the emotion? She's forgot that, hasn't she?
I'm just glad it's Jane Tanner and not me, that's all I'm saying.
You’re letting your emotions get in the way of your ability to think straight Monkey, IMO.
-
Please, no more allegations of lying otherwise I will apply sanctions.
-
It is very good advice for the police but dreadful advice for real life!
I don't agree. There are many people who would have gained from using it in real life; women fleeced by younger men from other countries, people investing in get rich quick schemes, those robbed by villains posing as bona fide workmen.....
-
I don't agree. There are many people who would have gained from using it in real life; women fleeced by younger men from other countries, people investing in get rich quick schemes, those robbed by villains posing as bona fide workmen.....
Do you suspect most people you encounter in real life of being villains out to get you?
-
I don't agree. There are many people who would have gained from using it in real life; women fleeced by younger men from other countries, people investing in get rich quick schemes, those robbed by villains posing as bona fide workmen.....
I think you Wil find many already follow that advice... It's basic common sense
-
ABC is a police instruction. I see it as very good advice, but difficult to follow.
Agreed. But there are hopefully checks and balances applied in police investigations, or should be. There aren't, necessarily, in forum discussions, nor - even worse - in TV panel discussions with pundits and an unquestioning host.
-
Supporters thought please ?
The answer is that no one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
-
I don't agree. There are many people who would have gained from using it in real life; women fleeced by younger men from other countries, people investing in get rich quick schemes, those robbed by villains posing as bona fide workmen.....
Well obviously!!
But not in day to day established relationships?
-
Well obviously!!
But not in day to day established relationships?
So not always dreadful advice for real life then.
-
So not always dreadful advice for real life then.
I hadn't thought of the circumstances you mention as they are not part of my real life experience.
I was only thinking of that set of rules and their application in family relationships.
Wasn't really thinking of people who would find themselves in those situations.
I admit I hadn't considered vulnerable folk.
My mistake.
-
I hadn't thought of the circumstances you mention as they are not part of my real life experience.
I was only thinking of that set of rules and their application in family relationships.
Wasn't really thinking of people who would find themselves in those situations.
I admit I hadn't considered vulnerable folk.
My mistake.
It's good advice in some families too. The world isn't divided into vulnerable and invulnerable people. It all depends on the situation imo.
-
It's good advice in some families too. The world isn't divided into vulnerable and invulnerable people. It all depends on the situation imo.
It's a good Maxim whenever money is involved..
And the mccanns should not have signed those statements in Portuguese ..but did they have a choice
-
It's good advice in some families too. The world isn't divided into vulnerable and invulnerable people. It all depends on the situation imo.
It does.
Usually those who intend to scam people in some way do seek out those who may be at a vulnerable time in their life.
-
I don't agree. There are many people who would have gained from using it in real life; women fleeced by younger men from other countries, people investing in get rich quick schemes, those robbed by villains posing as bona fide workmen.....
At this rate we'll be on to fake charity collectors next. Oh hang on ......
-
At this rate we'll be on to fake charity collectors next. Oh hang on ......
Not just fake... Genuine ones to
If I'm asked to contribute I ask how much of my pound is actually received by those the charities support... The answer is usually.. I don't know... So I don't contribute
I question everything and have decided based on the evidence that the mccanns are innocent... Not 100%...but close
-
"Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip."
" ... but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason ... "
__________________________________________________________________________________
As outlined in Kate's book ... Gerry had a stomach upset ... and judicial secrecy laws prevented discussion of the case.
What has been made of those simple sentences must indeed rank as among the most revealing of 'discussions' as to the paucity of the driving force behind the opprobrium directed day and daily towards this innocent couple.
I think it is all tommyrot but the good thing about it is that it is so revealing ... but not regarding Kate or Gerry.
I know she knew how to the use the ‘ no comment’ tactic as she used it in her rogatory interview. Why not here ?
What is revealing about this discussion is how blinkered those who support the parents are. Again and again you are given evidence of the parent’s duplicity but still your fingers remain firmly in your ears.
Watching Trump supporters being interviewed at his most recent rally again reminds me of the old adage...it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled.
-
I know she knew how to the use the ‘ no comment’ tactic as she used it in her rogatory interview. Why not here ?
What is revealing about this discussion is how blinkered those who support the parents are. Again and again you are given evidence of the parent’s duplicity but still your fingers remain firmly in your ears.
Watching Trump supporters being interviewed at his most recent rally again reminds me of the old adage...it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled.
Prove Gerry was deliberately lying to mislead viewers. You can't. The end.
-
I know she knew how to the use the ‘ no comment’ tactic as she used it in her rogatory interview. Why not here ?
What is revealing about this discussion is how blinkered those who support the parents are. Again and again you are given evidence of the parent’s duplicity but still your fingers remain firmly in your ears.
Watching Trump supporters being interviewed at his most recent rally again reminds me of the old adage...it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled.
I think it's you who is blinkered and it's you who has been fooled
-
I know she knew how to the use the ‘ no comment’ tactic as she used it in her rogatory interview. Why not here ?
What is revealing about this discussion is how blinkered those who support the parents are. Again and again you are given evidence of the parent’s duplicity but still your fingers remain firmly in your ears.
Watching Trump supporters being interviewed at his most recent rally again reminds me of the old adage...it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled.
COuld we have a cite for Kate using "no comment" in her rogatory interview? Where in this TV interview do you believe Kate should have said "no comment"? What did she say instead that was duplicitous? Let's see this amazing evidence that we're ignoring.
-
I know she knew how to the use the ‘ no comment’ tactic as she used it in her rogatory interview. Why not here ?
What is revealing about this discussion is how blinkered those who support the parents are. Again and again you are given evidence of the parent’s duplicity but still your fingers remain firmly in your ears.
Watching Trump supporters being interviewed at his most recent rally again reminds me of the old adage...it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled.
I know you have a very poor opnion of those who do not believe that Madeleine's parents are duplictious but it could be that we are not the blinkered ones, nor have our fingers in our ears.
Not pleasant accusations but mild compared to your grossly insulting comparison to being Trump supporters. 8()(((@#
(&^&
-
COuld we have a cite for Kate using "no comment" in her rogatory interview? Where in this TV interview do you believe Kate should have said "no comment"? What did she say instead that was duplicitous? Let's see this amazing evidence that we're ignoring.
Kate McCann didn't do a Rogatory Interview.
-
COuld we have a cite for Kate using "no comment" in her rogatory interview? Where in this TV interview do you believe Kate should have said "no comment"? What did she say instead that was duplicitous? Let's see this amazing evidence that we're ignoring.
Perhaps Faith will respond to this post?
-
Not just fake... Genuine ones to
If I'm asked to contribute I ask how much of my pound is actually received by those the charities support... The answer is usually.. I don't know... So I don't contribute
I question everything and have decided based on the evidence that the mccanns are innocent... Not 100%...but close
Luz is the home of NECI. They take in children who have learning difficulties, and children who are terminally ill, partly to give the parents a days respite, and partly to give the kids 'a day out'. To be clear, that means inside a large, safe modern facility in western Luz.
We used to live around 100m away from NECI.
It is clear from the facilities used by NECI that they have significant overheads.
Would I care about that if a NECI collector knocked on my door and asked for 10€? Not in the slightest. My issue would be that NECI is on record as stating it does not do door-to-door collections, so probably I'm talking to a fake.
Should anyone ever visit Luz, NECI has a covered stand on the sea-front avenida. If you are feeling charitable, it is a cause I can heartily recommend.
-
COuld we have a cite for Kate using "no comment" in her rogatory interview? Where in this TV interview do you believe Kate should have said "no comment"? What did she say instead that was duplicitous? Let's see this amazing evidence that we're ignoring.
Katedid not do a rogatory interview AFAIK. Not in the list
"
KATE MCCANN 48 QUESTIONS TO WHICH SHE DID NOT RESPOND 07 SEP 2007
KATE MCCANN 04 MAY 2007 STATEMENT
KATE MCCANN 06 SEP 2007 ARGUIDO
KATE MCCANN 07 SEP 2007 ARGUIDO
KATE MCCANN DIARY CONCLUSION
KATE MCCANN'S LETTER TO PAOLO REBELO
KATE MCCANN THE BOAT VISION"
-
I know you have a very poor opnion of those who do not believe that Madeleine's parents are duplictious but it could be that we are not the blinkered ones, nor have our fingers in our ears.
Not pleasant accusations but mild compared to your grossly insulting comparison to being Trump supporters. 8()(((@#
(&^&
Only the contrary I feel anger for those who do not believe the parents are duplicitous. I would hate to be treated with such utter contempt by those who I offered my support. That the parents use the public’s natural empathy with the parents of lost children against them infuriates me more than just about anything else in this case.
Divide and conquer has always been their raison d’etre for this entire circus and nowhere is it more acutely displayed than on this board. Individuals who, in real life, would probably get on famously knock lumps out of each other each and every day and bestow on each other the most insulting character traits simply because they believe something different. This case is toxic and there is only one reason for that.
-
Perhaps Faith will respond to this post?
I have VS on ignore so only see his posts if they are ncluded in another post but of course I’ll answer.
Kate’s justification for being dishonest about Gerry’s virus was judicial secrecy. She could simply have said no comment, which was exactly what she did when she didn’t want to answer questions in her arguido interview.
-
I have VS on ignore so only see his posts if it’s included in another post but of course I’ll answer.
Kate’s justification for being dishonest about Gerry’s virus was judicial secrecy. She could simply have said no comment, which was exactly what she did when she didn’t want to answer questions in her rogatory interview.
Kate did not do a Rogatory Interview.
-
Luz is the home of NECI. They take in children who have learning difficulties, and children who are terminally ill, partly to give the parents a days respite, and partly to give the kids 'a day out'. To be clear, that means inside a large, safe modern facility in western Luz.
We used to live around 100m away from NECI.
It is clear from the facilities used by NECI that they have significant overheads.
Would I care about that if a NECI collector knocked on my door and asked for 10€? Not in the slightest. My issue would be that NECI is on record as stating it does not do door-to-door collections, so probably I'm talking to a fake.
Should anyone ever visit Luz, NECI has a covered stand on the sea-front avenida. If you are feeling charitable, it is a cause I can heartily recommend.
You miss the point. How much of that 10 euros actually goes to NECI...if its most or all im happy to contribute.
There is a trend now to emply "Chuggers".....poeple who stop you in the street and persuade you to set up a standing order to the likes of OXfam...as I understand the whole of your first years donation goes to the organisation making the collection...thats what I object to
-
Kate did not do a Rogatory Interview.
Apologies, arguido interview...but I’m sure everyone knew that.
-
I have VS on ignore so only see his posts if they are ncluded in another post but of course I’ll answer.
Kate’s justification for being dishonest about Gerry’s virus was judicial secrecy. She could simply have said no comment, which was exactly what she did when she didn’t want to answer questions in her arguido interview.
Seems rather silly to have any poster on ignore. IMO.
I doubt there is much point in VS answering then if you will be ignoring that answer.
If VS does answer then I could "bump" the answer and you could respond?
-
I have VS on ignore so only see his posts if they are ncluded in another post but of course I’ll answer.
Kate’s justification for being dishonest about Gerry’s virus was judicial secrecy. She could simply have said no comment, which was exactly what she did when she didn’t want to answer questions in her arguido interview.
Faithlilly, so she lied. You lie too. you admitted it. Does that mean everything you say is a lie? Is your credibility in tatters because you lied? Was the lie Kate told damaging? Did it cause upset? Did it prevent justice from being served? No. It was inconsequential and not really all that far from the truth. Not only that, she even owned up to it in her book (no need whatsoever to do that). Please show some balance and perspective. I know it's hard when you've invested so much of your time and energy in painting the McCanns as villains, but this is a sad reflection on you, far more than on them.
-
Faithlilly, so she lied. You lie too. you admitted it. Does that mean everything you say is a lie? Is your credibility in tatters because you lied? Was the lie Kate told damaging? Did it cause upset? Did it prevent justice from being served? No. It was inconsequential and not really all that far from the truth. Not only that, she even owned up to it in her book (no need whatsoever to do that). Please show some balance and perspective. I know it's hard when you've invested so much of your time and energy in painting the McCanns as villains, but this is a sad reflection on you, far more than on them.
Well said.
-
Only the contrary I feel anger for those who do not believe the parents are duplicitous. I would hate to be treated with such utter contempt by those who I offered my support. That the parents use the public’s natural empathy with the parents of lost children against them infuriates me more than just about anything else in this case.
Divide and conquer has always been their raison d’etre for this entire circus and nowhere is it more acutely displayed than on this board. Individuals who, in real life, would probably get on famously knock lumps out of each other each and every day and bestow on each other the most insulting character traits simply because they believe something different. This case is toxic and there is only one reason for that.
Strange to me you feel all this anger... I find that quite illogical... Avery strange post
-
Strange to me you feel all this anger... I find that quite illogical... Avery strange post
Not strange at all. Have you never felt anger at an injustice perpetrated on someone else ? Isn’t it simply a human reaction?
-
Not strange at all. Have you never felt anger at an injustice perpetrated on someone else ? Isn’t it simply a human reaction?
So you are angry with thr McCanns on behalf of their supporters? Interesting.
-
Not strange at all. Have you never felt anger at an injustice perpetrated on someone else ? Isn’t it simply a human reaction?
Your anger us abnormal.. IMO... Very abnormal and just out if all proportion
-
So you are angry with thr McCanns on behalf of their supporters? Interesting.
Indeed, its usually supporters being angry with sceptics on behalf of the MCcanns.
-
Your anger us abnormal.. IMO... Very abnormal and just out if all proportion
I think not feeling anger when you are being sold a pup is abnormal...but I suppose you’ve had 12 years to come to terms with it.
-
I think not feeling anger when you are being sold a pup is abnormal...but I suppose you’ve had 12 years to come to terms with it.
I dont feel ive been sold anything....i just have an interest in the case...you seem very emotionally involved
-
Indeed, its usually supporters being angry with sceptics on behalf of the MCcanns.
That seems a fair assessment.
-
I have VS on ignore so only see his posts if they are ncluded in another post but of course I’ll answer.
Kate’s justification for being dishonest about Gerry’s virus was judicial secrecy. She could simply have said no comment, which was exactly what she did when she didn’t want to answer questions in her arguido interview.
Maybe 'no comment' might have sounded a bit brash, so she told a white lie, Gerry did have a stomach upset but she elaborated it.
They weren't allowed to speak about the investigation.
-
I think not feeling anger when you are being sold a pup is abnormal...but I suppose you’ve had 12 years to come to terms with it.
Who sold anyone a pup? I don't feel anger towards Sceptics. But I have to say that the nastiness gets through to me sometimes, although I am getting better at dealing with it. In my own head, that is.
A fact remains for me. Even if I am wrong, which I doubt, then I haven't spent the last twelve years slagging off The McCanns with nothing more than supposition to go on.
There is a Rule of Law. Innocent until Proven Guilty. And if you ignore that then Society is in deep trouble.
-
Who sold anyone a pup? I don't feel anger towards Sceptics. But I have to say that the nastiness gets through to me sometimes, although I am getting better at dealing with it. In my own head, that is.
A fact remains for me. Even if I am wrong, which I doubt, then I haven't spent the last twelve years slagging off The McCanns with nothing more than supposition to go on.
There is a Rule of Law. Innocent until Proven Guilty. And if you ignore that then Society is in deep trouble.
Well said Eleanor.
Neither do I feel I have 'been sold a pup" and definitely no anger towards the family of a missing child.
-
Who sold anyone a pup? I don't feel anger towards Sceptics. But I have to say that the nastiness gets through to me sometimes, although I am getting better at dealing with it. In my own head, that is.
A fact remains for me. Even if I am wrong, which I doubt, then I haven't spent the last twelve years slagging off The McCanns with nothing more than supposition to go on.
There is a Rule of Law. Innocent until Proven Guilty. And if you ignore that then Society is in deep trouble.
If you are wrong then you'd have been supporting potential child killers, body ocultars & fraudsters for the past 12 years.
How could you live with yourself? I know I couldn't.
Nope, I think it much safer to presume the McCanns guilty,
If I'm wrong then no harm done.
-
If you are wrong then you'd have been supporting potential child killers, body ocultars & fraudsters for the past 12 years.
How could you live with yourself? I know I couldn't.
Nope, I think it much safer to presume the McCanns guilty,
If I'm wrong then no harm done.
It isn't my place to convict The McCanns. I support The Rule of Law. You obviously don't. This will ultimately do more harm to yourself, but then it's probably too late to save you.
-
It isn't my place to convict The McCanns. I support The Rule of Law. You obviously don't. This will ultimately do more harm to yourself, but then it's probably too late to save you.
It hasn't done me any harm so far.
I've quite enjoyed myself to be honest.
-
It hasn't done me any harm so far.
I've quite enjoyed myself to be honest.
Oh Dear. How Sad.
-
Maybe 'no comment' might have sounded a bit brash, so she told a white lie, Gerry did have a stomach upset but she elaborated it.
They weren't allowed to speak about the investigation.
Then no comment would have been the correct response.
Please don’t pretend that this was anything but a face saving exercise.
-
It isn't my place to convict The McCanns. I support The Rule of Law. You obviously don't. This will ultimately do more harm to yourself, but then it's probably too late to save you.
I wonder Eleanor, do you support the rule of law across the board of all clearaance, not guilty, not proven and conviction? Curious, that's all.
Ignore that , apologies. Not an apt Q at all.
-
I wonder Eleanor, do you support the rule of law across the board of all clearaance, not guilty, not proven and conviction? Curious, that's all.
Ignore that , apologies. Not an apt Q at all.
I support The Rule of Law absolutely in this case. The McCanns haven't even been arrested, let alone charged.
But circumstances vary. However, I still need to see Proof.
In the past I have thought about being a Juror in some cases, although I never have been. But I have wondered how Jurors actually come to a conclusion when the evidence is debatable.
-
I support The Rule of Law absolutely in this case. The McCanns haven't even been arrested, let alone charged.
But circumstances vary. However, I still need to see Proof.
In the past I have thought about being a Juror in some cases, although I never have been. But I have wondered how Jurors actually come to a conclusion when the evidence is debatable.
Thank you for your reply.
-
Thank you for your reply.
My pleasure.
-
Indeed, its usually supporters being angry with sceptics on behalf of the MCcanns.
Is it? I’m not remotely angry with you adorable little people.
-
Is it? I’m not remotely angry with you adorable little people.
Well, just a teensy bit cross now and again. But not very often.
-
Well, just a teensy bit cross now and again. But not very often.
I just find them hugely amusing and entertaining, I know that’s an awful admission... 8(8-))
-
I just find them hugely amusing and entertaining, I know that’s an awful admission... 8(8-))
No no, that's okay. I do laugh most of the time.
-
Who sold anyone a pup? I don't feel anger towards Sceptics. But I have to say that the nastiness gets through to me sometimes, although I am getting better at dealing with it. In my own head, that is.
A fact remains for me. Even if I am wrong, which I doubt, then I haven't spent the last twelve years slagging off The McCanns with nothing more than supposition to go on.
There is a Rule of Law. Innocent until Proven Guilty. And if you ignore that then Society is in deep trouble.
Then we're in deep trouble,John Canaan is named as the prime suspect in the murder of Suzi lamplugh,despite there being not enough evidence,Suzi Lamplugh is missing presumed dead,Canaan is in prison serving life for other murders does that rule out his right to innocence until proven guilty.
-
Then we're in deep trouble,John Canaan is named as the prime suspect in the murder of Suzi lamplugh,despite there being not enough evidence,Suzi Lamplugh is missing presumed dead,Canaan is in prison serving life for other murders does that rule out his right to innocence until proven guilty.
I’m afraid with some it doesn’t. Yet perversely Amaral’s conviction for perjury makes him guilty by default of all sorts of calumnies.
It’s a funny old world.
-
I’m afraid with some it doesn’t. Yet perversely Amaral’s conviction for perjury makes him guilty by default of all sorts of calumnies.
It’s a funny old world.
Don't use fancy words, you'll confuse the mods.
-
Don't use fancy words, you'll confuse the mods.
Which "fancy words" will confuse which mods.?
A disappointing post General.
Not up to your usual standard.
In my opinion of course.
-
Which "fancy words" will confuse which mods.?
A disappointing post General.
Not up to your usual standard.
In my opinion of course.
Have you got a cat that walks over the keyboard?
-
Have you got a cat that walks over the keyboard?
No?
There is no keyboard in our home.
There is a cat.
There is a piano.
-
No?
There is no keyboard in our home.
There is a cat.
There is a piano.
Well does your cat walk over your phone while you are posting? My cat walks over my keyboard and sometimes does her own typing.
The reason I'm asking was that your post above came out wrong and it had additional text added to the quoted bit.
-
If you are wrong then you'd have been supporting potential child killers, body ocultars & fraudsters for the past 12 years.
How could you live with yourself? I know I couldn't.
Nope, I think it much safer to presume the McCanns guilty,
If I'm wrong then no harm done.
I'm not sure whether you're being serious or in WUM mode on that. I disagree that there's "no harm done" on so many levels.
Madeleine: Potential witnesses in the event of an abductor at large may not come forward if persuaded that there's no point.
Other kids: that person may still be at large.
The twins: how would you feel at 14 contantly hearing that your parents were criminally involved in your sister's disappearance? What about potential bullying? If ever you're right, they'll have time enough to come to terms with it.
Family security: I expect you know as well as I do that anonymous forumers have suggested vigilante action, including kidnapping the twins, setting the house on fire, and more.
-
Well does your cat walk over your phone while you are posting? My cat walks over my keyboard and sometimes does her own typing.
The reason I'm asking was that your post above came out wrong and it had additional text added to the quoted bit.
When your puddiecat eventually goes, you might find you miss even those annoying little habits. ;)
-
No?
There is no keyboard in our home.
There is a cat.
There is a piano.
Tut...just a piano ? I have a jazz quartet in the corner of my kitchen. I do like a little music while sautéing my onions.
-
Which "fancy words" will confuse which mods.?
A disappointing post General.
Not up to your usual standard.
In my opinion of course.
My use of the word 'innate' caused a right stir. Then Rob quoted the philosophical meaning, as opposed to the literal adjective it was being used as. Suffice to say there was some confusion.
-
My use of the word 'innate' caused a right stir. Then Rob quoted the philosophical meaning, as opposed to the literal adjective it was being used as. Suffice to say there was some confusion.
If nothing else this forum has enriched Rob’s vocabulary, which must be a good thing surely?
-
My use of the word 'innate' caused a right stir. Then Rob quoted the philosophical meaning, as opposed to the literal adjective it was being used as. Suffice to say there was some confusion.
I don't need to understand All Words. I generally manage to get the drift.
PS. I was being facetious, by the way. You obviously failed to spot that.
-
I don't need to understand All Words. I generally manage to get the drift.
PS. I was being facetious, by the way. You obviously failed to spot that.
I didn't. It's just that if I point that out, then I'm being aggressive. No win.
I'm the current title holder for the most glib remarks, so I can't complain, however.
-
Well does your cat walk over your phone while you are posting? My cat walks over my keyboard and sometimes does her own typing.
The reason I'm asking was that your post above came out wrong and it had additional text added to the quoted bit.
I immediately thought of a musical keyboard, hence my reference to the piano.lol.
It was my late mums piano which she played as a young girl.
My father also played the piano.
Years ago we brought it to our home but it has been silent for many years.
Neither I nor my siblings ever learned to play.
Now our youngest grand daughter is learning the piano and can play some tunes.
It is lovely to listen to her, as it's been silent for a very long time.
Thanks for sorting out my post.
I can't blame the cat for messing it up.
-
If you are wrong then you'd have been supporting potential child killers, body ocultars & fraudsters for the past 12 years.
How could you live with yourself? I know I couldn't.
Nope, I think it much safer to presume the McCanns guilty,
If I'm wrong then no harm done.
So lets assume you're right and the McCanns are directly responsible for MM's disappearance when do you consider was the last reliable sighting of MM alive and well?
Afaik the McCanns and T7 did not have access to a vehicle before 10pm 3rd May? For those that believe PJ were less than thorough, given the high profile nature of the case, its almost certain that many with a ghoulish interest in the case would take it upon themselves to descend upon PDL and scour the entire resort wanting to claim 'I found Maddie'!
I've watched a couple of docs which highlighted the bins that were taken to landfill and may not have been searched thoroughly. Another doc highlighted a lot of deep wells and I doubt these have been searched properly. I can't see how a body could be disposed of in the ocean unless a boat was used?
The Smith sighting of a man resembling GM was circa 10pm? If this is correct GM was observed elsewhere by numerous others?
-
I didn't. It's just that if I point that out, then I'm being aggressive. No win.
I'm the current title holder for the most glib remarks, so I can't complain, however.
Stick with it general,or you'll be one less to deal with,its how it works,many have gone before.
-
If nothing else this forum has enriched Rob’s vocabulary, which must be a good thing surely?
Indeed, why not.
-
So lets assume you're right and the McCanns are directly responsible for MM's disappearance when do you consider was the last reliable sighting of MM alive and well?
Afaik the McCanns and T7 did not have access to a vehicle before 10pm 3rd May? For those that believe PJ were less than thorough, given the high profile nature of the case, its almost certain that many with a ghoulish interest in the case would take it upon themselves to descend upon PDL and scour the entire resort wanting to claim 'I found Maddie'!
I've watched a couple of docs which highlighted the bins that were taken to landfill and may not have been searched thoroughly. Another doc highlighted a lot of deep wells and I doubt these have been searched properly. I can't see how a body could be disposed of in the ocean unless a boat was used?
The Smith sighting of a man resembling GM was circa 10pm? If this is correct GM was observed elsewhere by numerous others?
The facts;
The PJ found no evidence of access to a car, but that doesn't rule out the possibility.
There were places where a body could have been disposed of without transport being needed.
There's no definite time for the Smith sighting the or raising of the alarm that MM was missing.
-
So lets assume you're right and the McCanns are directly responsible for MM's disappearance when do you consider was the last reliable sighting of MM alive and well?
Afaik the McCanns and T7 did not have access to a vehicle before 10pm 3rd May? For those that believe PJ were less than thorough, given the high profile nature of the case, its almost certain that many with a ghoulish interest in the case would take it upon themselves to descend upon PDL and scour the entire resort wanting to claim 'I found Maddie'!
I've watched a couple of docs which highlighted the bins that were taken to landfill and may not have been searched thoroughly. Another doc highlighted a lot of deep wells and I doubt these have been searched properly. I can't see how a body could be disposed of in the ocean unless a boat was used?
The Smith sighting of a man resembling GM was circa 10pm? If this is correct GM was observed elsewhere by numerous others?
The last reliable sighting of Maddie alive, that I believe, would have been when she was at the creche.
I don't trust the McCanns or David Payne's supposed sighting.
The Smith's sighting was just after 10pm.
Matt Oldfield gave the time of Kate's check as 9,50, Fiona Payne gave 9.45.
Gerry gives a much later time, surprise surprise!
Kate wasn't searching the apartment for 15 mins, therefore, on the basis that the alarm was raised before 10pm there is sufficient time for Gerry to be the man the Smith's saw, whilst he was out 'searching'.... alone..... IMO
-
The facts;
The PJ found no evidence of access to a car, but that doesn't rule out the possibility.
There were places where a body could have been disposed of without transport being needed.
There's no definite time for the Smith sighting the or raising of the alarm that MM was missing.
And no definitive time when the chat between Gerry and Jez happened.
-
The facts;
1. The PJ found no evidence of access to a car, but that doesn't rule out the possibility.
2. There were places where a body could have been disposed of without transport being needed.
3. There's no definite time for the Smith sighting the or raising of the alarm that MM was missing.
1. What's possible and what's plausible?
2. Such as?
3. I think the various times provided by T9 , various independent witnesses and the Smith family rule out GM's involvement in the Smith sighting.
-
When your puddiecat eventually goes, you might find you miss even those annoying little habits. ;)
Yes - we've lost quite a few cats over the years.
-
If nothing else this forum has enriched Rob’s vocabulary, which must be a good thing surely?
Absolutely. I find I'm writing sentences with vocabulary that I've never imagined using 2 years ago. I think even though we discuss the same things over and over the whole discussion is an education.
-
So lets assume you're right and the McCanns are directly responsible for MM's disappearance when do you consider was the last reliable sighting of MM alive and well?
Afaik the McCanns and T7 did not have access to a vehicle before 10pm 3rd May? For those that believe PJ were less than thorough, given the high profile nature of the case, its almost certain that many with a ghoulish interest in the case would take it upon themselves to descend upon PDL and scour the entire resort wanting to claim 'I found Maddie'!
I've watched a couple of docs which highlighted the bins that were taken to landfill and may not have been searched thoroughly. Another doc highlighted a lot of deep wells and I doubt these have been searched properly. I can't see how a body could be disposed of in the ocean unless a boat was used?
The Smith sighting of a man resembling GM was circa 10pm? If this is correct GM was observed elsewhere by numerous others?
The timeline is key. The alarm was raised before the Smith sighting.
-
Absolutely. I find I'm writing sentences with vocabulary that I've never imagined using 2 years ago. I think even though we discuss the same things over and over the whole discussion is an education.
You are so right, Rob. My vocabulary was rubbish before I started on McCann Forums. Lack of formal education, basically.
I still miss a few, but with a bit of luck that will be sorted before the end.
-
1. What's possible and what's plausible?
2. Such as?
3. I think the various times provided by T9 , various independent witnesses and the Smith family rule out GM's involvement in the Smith sighting.
1. There were connections in Portugal. Probably totally innocent, but who knows?
1.a) The PJ were interested in the couple from Exeter who were friends of the O'Brien/Tanner couple; they had hire car which was screened by Eddie and Keela.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/James_Gorrod.htm
1. b) When Gerry's sister arrived in Portugal on 5th May 'a friend' lent them a car.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
1. c) DP was able to get new mobile phones delivered ti the police station on 4th May.
2) Bins and wells, as you said.
3) IMO there's evidence which rules out GM being the man seen by the Smiths, but there's also evidence which casrs doubt on that evidence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
-
Re the Smith sighting as at 31 March 2018:
The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do
not form part of any current appeal.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/madeleine_mccann_case_operation
-
Re the Smith sighting as at 31 March 2018:
The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do
not form part of any current appeal.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/madeleine_mccann_case_operation
In other words ... the investigation doesn't require any more information about the efits ... for any one of the following reasons ...- they have been eliminated from the inquiry
- not yet eliminated but their identity known and they remain of interest
- not yet eliminated but their identity known and they are suspects who are being investigated
Anything else?
-
The timeline is key. The alarm was raised before the Smith sighting.
Prove it.
-
The facts;
The PJ found no evidence of access to a car, but that doesn't rule out the possibility.
There were places where a body could have been disposed of without transport being needed.
There's no definite time for the Smith sighting the or raising of the alarm that MM was missing.
What would rule out the possibility that the McCanns had access to a car prior to the alarm?
-
What would rule out the possibility that the McCanns had access to a car prior to the alarm?
No evidence to the contrary.
-
No evidence to the contrary.
Then it’s been ruled out.
-
And no definitive time when the chat between Gerry and Jez happened.
No confirmation that they started dinner later than usual.....
-
Prove it.
The witness statements will prove it. Matt was accused of being involved on 10 May 2007 by the PJ and he started providing interesting info especially as he wore a watch that night. He said Kate left at 21:50 to check and nobody apart from Gerry said she was gone long. 21:50 corroborates with the waiter that served Russell his steak moments before Kate left the table. That puts the alarm before 22:00 and the Smith sighting.
-
For those who missed this earlier...
As another weekend approaches can I ask everyone to please follow the forum rules. The hard pressed moderators do an excellent job in keeping things moving so do consider them next time you feel you need to have a go at someone.
Let's try and set a new record this weekend by drastically cutting the number of moderated posts. As an incentive, the prize for the member whose has the most posts moderated/deleted over Saturday and Sunday will be a two day ban.
Happy posting!
-
The witness statements will prove it. Matt was accused of being involved on 10 May 2007 by the PJ and he started providing interesting info especially as he wore a watch that night. He said Kate left at 21:50 to check and nobody apart from Gerry said she was gone long. 21:50 corroborates with the waiter that served Russell his steak moments before Kate left the table. That puts the alarm before 22:00 and the Smith sighting.
Cites for your claims please:
1. "The witness statements will prove it."
2. "as he wore a watch that night." OK one reply "1578 'And did you wear watches''
Reply 'Yes'.
Definitely not a direct quote from Matt Oldfield's rogatory statement.
Who's rogatory was that from?
-
Cites for your claims please:
1. "The witness statements will prove it."
2. "as he wore a watch that night."
1. Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
2. 1578 'How many times would, would yourself and, and Matthew have gone to check on Grace''
Reply 'Erm I suppose, we'd sit at the table about eight thirty, so erm we probably went about two or three times each during the course of the meal, erm yeah, well Sunday night Matt wasn't there but he was in the apartment with Grace so I didn't check, Monday night we were both at the table, erm and we just took turns'.
1578 'And did you wear watches''
Reply 'Yes'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
1. Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
2. 1578 'How many times would, would yourself and, and Matthew have gone to check on Grace''
Reply 'Erm I suppose, we'd sit at the table about eight thirty, so erm we probably went about two or three times each during the course of the meal, erm yeah, well Sunday night Matt wasn't there but he was in the apartment with Grace so I didn't check, Monday night we were both at the table, erm and we just took turns'.
1578 'And did you wear watches''
Reply 'Yes'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Not sure why you feel the need to shout. Who is "you"?
-
Do you not think it obvious that Rachael is referring to herself and Matt ?
-
Do you not think it obvious that Rachael is referring to herself and Matt ?
Yes, that's how I read it. So what was the point of "shouting" (bold and huge font size) about it?
-
Yes, that's how I read it. So what was the point of "shouting" (bold and huge font size) about it?
I didn't write the post, but Imagine that it was make the point, loud and clear to someone who was denying that they wore watches - maybe
-
I didn't write the post, but Imagine that it was make the point, loud and clear to someone who was denying that they wore watches - maybe
I was simply asking for a cite showing who said they were wearing watches.
-
I didn't write the post, but Imagine that it was make the point, loud and clear to someone who was denying that they wore watches - maybe
No, I know you didn't. Sorry if you thought that I was referring to you.
It was Pathfinder who was shouting for a reason that I haven't yet fathomed.
-
I didn't write the post, but Imagine that it was make the point, loud and clear to someone who was denying that they wore watches - maybe
Had the Oldfields ever denied wearing watches?
-
Had the Oldfields ever denied wearing watches?
No but Clarence Mitchell did on their behalf.
“Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.”
The Guardian 06 April 2008
-
No but Clarence Mitchell did on their behalf.
“Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.”
The Guardian 06 April 2008
Thanks, Faith,
I'm not sure that he would have checked with everyone in T9 over that.
The basic message, IMO, was that the group checked the kids who were sleeping a minute or so away, at more-or-less regular intervals during a relaxed meal.
I'd have found it a bit odd if they ccould have all accounted for every second.
-
Thanks, Faith,
I'm not sure that he would have checked with everyone in T9 over that.
The basic message, IMO, was that the group checked the kids who were sleeping a minute or so away, at more-or-less regular intervals during a relaxed meal.
I'd have found it a bit odd if they ccould have all accounted for every second.
The claim was to explain the anomalies in the group’s timings. If the anomalies were to be expected why didn’t Mitchell just state that. Why claim something that he could have no idea was true ?
What is it with this case that when the truth or no comment would be by far the most sensible response those involved always chose dishonesty ?
-
The claim was to explain the anomalies in the group’s timings. If the anomalies were to be expected why didn’t Mitchell just state that. Why claim something that he could have no idea was true ?
What is it with this case that when the truth or no comment would be by far the most sensible response those involved always chose dishonesty ?
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't... asking nine people to give exact explanations of what happened at what moment during the evening was never going to produce matching stories; what would have been more suspicious was nine exactly co-ordinated accounts."
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/analysis/kate-and-gerry-will-search-for-madeleine-to-the-end-of-their-lives-if-that-s-what-it-takes-1-2502642
-
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't... asking nine people to give exact explanations of what happened at what moment during the evening was never going to produce matching stories; what would have been more suspicious was nine exactly co-ordinated accounts."
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/analysis/kate-and-gerry-will-search-for-madeleine-to-the-end-of-their-lives-if-that-s-what-it-takes-1-2502642
Not sure why I can see your post but you illustrate my point admirably. Two quotes a month apart, each saying very different things. It seems in this case the truth is as fluid as the wine in the tapas bar.
-
Not sure why I can see your post but you illustrate my point admirably. Two quotes a month apart, each saying very different things. It seems in this case the truth is as fluid as the wine in the tapas bar.
Not very different things, saying the same thing really, just correcting a minor inaccuracy in his earlier interview perhaps. We all do it, so why should this be in any way suspicious?
-
Not very different things, saying the same thing really, just correcting a minor inaccuracy in his earlier interview perhaps. We all do it, so why should this be in any way suspicious?
It’s not suspicious. He’s doing what he’s been paid to do...to defuse the harm done by information which has been made public.
A Poundland Max Clifford.
-
It’s not suspicious. He’s doing what he’s been paid to do...to defuse the harm done by information which has been made public.
A Poundland Max Clifford.
What harm was done by what information bring made public?
-
What would rule out the possibility that the McCanns had access to a car prior to the alarm?
I'm just pointing out that it can't be stated with certainty that they didn't have access to a car. That's not a fact.
-
I'm just pointing out that it can't be stated with certainty that they didn't have access to a car. That's not a fact.
It can be stated with certainty that they did not have access to a car. Now it’s up to you to prove that ststement wrong.
-
The claim was to explain the anomalies in the group’s timings. If the anomalies were to be expected why didn’t Mitchell just state that. Why claim something that he could have no idea was true ?
What is it with this case that when the truth or no comment would be by far the most sensible response those involved always chose dishonesty ?
Once the little white lies start...
-
Once the little white lies start...
Indeed.
-
Once the little white lies start...
You appear to be accusing Mitchell of lying. Is that not against forum rules Moderator?
-
You appear to be accusing Mitchell of lying. Is that not against forum rules Moderator?
Since we have two contradictory statements in this thread, a valid assumption.
-
Since we have two contradictory statements in this thread, a valid assumption.
So it’s now ok to accuse Mitchell and the McCanns of lying is it? Can we extend that to others who have made contradictory statements like Murat for example?
-
Since we have two contradictory statements in this thread, a valid assumption.
as you are basing your opinion on the validity of newsaper articles your opinion has similar validity
-
It can be stated with certainty that they did not have access to a car. Now it’s up to you to prove that ststement wrong.
No it isn't. It's up to those claiming that statement is factual.
-
No it isn't. It's up to those claiming that statement is factual.
First it has to be proved that there was a Car.
This is a silly suggestion that there was, in my opinion. Twelve years and no sign that any such car existed. What proof would you like?
-
The witness statements will prove it. Matt was accused of being involved on 10 May 2007 by the PJ and he started providing interesting info especially as he wore a watch that night. He said Kate left at 21:50 to check and nobody apart from Gerry said she was gone long. 21:50 corroborates with the waiter that served Russell his steak moments before Kate left the table. That puts the alarm before 22:00 and the Smith sighting.
Russell managed to eat most of his dinner before the alarm.
They then all went back to 5a, the friends all say they all headed back to 5a. So how much time would have gone by, by the time they had all gone back to 5a to search? Gerry tried the blind, Dianne said she tried too so she must have known that Gerry had lifted it up, so how much time had gone by then?
A waiter saw Gerry searching around the pool area, when he left the restaurant there was already about 40 people gathered outside to search for Madeleine.
So did Gerry leave the apartment with Madeleine when the people were gathering?
-
Russell managed to eat most of his dinner before the alarm.
They then all went back to 5a, the friends all say they all headed back to 5a. So how much time would have gone by, by the time they had all gone back to 5a to search? Gerry tried the blind, Dianne said she tried too so she must have known that Gerry had lifted it up, so how much time had gone by then?
A waiter saw Gerry searching around the pool area, when he left the restaurant there was already about 40 people gathered outside to search for Madeleine.
So did Gerry leave the apartment with Madeleine when the people were gathering?
There is nothing to suggest that Diane Webster knew that Gerry had already tampered with the blind.
-
Russell managed to eat most of his dinner before the alarm.
They then all went back to 5a, the friends all say they all headed back to 5a. So how much time would have gone by, by the time they had all gone back to 5a to search? Gerry tried the blind, Dianne said she tried too so she must have known that Gerry had lifted it up, so how much time had gone by then?
A waiter saw Gerry searching around the pool area, when he left the restaurant there was already about 40 people gathered outside to search for Madeleine.
So did Gerry leave the apartment with Madeleine when the people were gathering?
I imagine it would have taken some time after raising the alarm before 40 or so people could be searching
-
There is nothing to suggest that Diane Webster knew that Gerry had already tampered with the blind.
Who tampered with the blind first?
In what position was the blind left?
Did they know Kate said the shutter or blind was fully up when she went to check the kids?
Well if either Gerry or Dianne arrive and find the blind fully up they know they were first to tamper with the blind for the first thing they would have had to do was to lower it from the inside.
-
Who tampered with the blind first?
In what position was the blind left?
Did they know Kate said the shutter or blind was fully up when she went to check the kids?
Well if either Gerry or Dianne arrive and find the blind fully up they know they were first to tamper with the blind for the first thing they would have had to do was to lower it from the inside.
Gerry went out to see if it could be raised from the outside..
Seems like he managed to do it without leaving any prints... As did Diane
-
Gerry went out to see if it could be raised from the outside..
Seems like he managed to do it without leaving any prints... As did Diane
From memory, there were marks found on the shutter but they were too smudged to be identifiable.
-
Russell managed to eat most of his dinner before the alarm.
They then all went back to 5a, the friends all say they all headed back to 5a. So how much time would have gone by, by the time they had all gone back to 5a to search? Gerry tried the blind, Dianne said she tried too so she must have known that Gerry had lifted it up, so how much time had gone by then?
A waiter saw Gerry searching around the pool area, when he left the restaurant there was already about 40 people gathered outside to search for Madeleine.
So did Gerry leave the apartment with Madeleine when the people were gathering?
Ate most of his dinner? No wonder people can't solve the case. They don't have a clue about the timeline.
by the time Russell had got back to the table err he’d err they’d err they’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Gerry wasn't in the pool area. David and Matt were the two men searching there.
-
From memory, there were marks found on the shutter but they were too smudged to be identifiable.
Unidentified marks possibly belonging to an abductor.... Doesn't say much for Professor Barclays conclusions
-
Unidentified marks possibly belonging to an abductor.... Doesn't say much for Professor Barclays conclusions
Have you shifted your stance from no fingerprints to dissing Professor Barclay? Barclay had no access to the PJ Files. He was going by what was in the public domain at the time. And that was Irene Trovão dusting the shutter for fingerprints, as shown in the C4 video.
-
No it isn't. It's up to those claiming that statement is factual.
It is factual. No car was leased to Gerry McCann for use on the night of thr 3rd, morning of the 4th, nor is there any evidence that a car was stolen on the night of the 3rd in PdL, nor is there anyone living in the vicinity of PdL who had a personal connection to the McCanns, who might have lent him a car, so it’s a fact. It’s a pretty silly game you’re playing, but if keeps you amused. There is no evidence Gerry didn’t have access to a wood chipper that night either, or the keys to the local pet crematorium ergo it can’t be ruled out, right?
-
Have you shifted your stance from no fingerprints to dissing Professor Barclay? Barclay had no access to the PJ Files. He was going by what was in the public domain at the time. And that was Irene Trovão dusting the shutter for fingerprints, as shown in the C4 video.
I haven't shifted my stance at all... Barclay should have not reached any conclusions based on insufficient evidence.... That isn't how real experts work
-
It is factual. No car was leased to Gerry McCann for use on the night of thr 3rd, morning of the 4th, nor is there any evidence that a car was stolen on the night of the 3rd in PdL, nor is there anyone living in the vicinity of PdL who had a personal connection to the McCanns, who might have leant him a car, so it’s a fact. It’s a pretty silly game you’re playing, but if keeps you amused. There is no evidence Gerry didn’t have access to a wood chipper that night either, or the keys to the local pet crematorium ergo it can’t be ruled out, right?
To date, I have not been able to establish who delivered two mobiles to the Portimão PJ station on 4 May, nor why, nor how.
Someone was very quick to be a Guardian Angel in the Algarve.
Hmmm? *%87
-
To date, I have not been able to establish who delivered two mobiles to the Portimão PJ station on 4 May, nor why, nor how.
Someone was very quick to be a Guardian Angel in the Algarve.
Hmmm? *%87
Thanks for sharing. And your point is...?
-
Thanks for sharing. And your point is...?
Exactly the point I've made.
-
Exactly the point I've made.
What does it have to do with my post? *%87 Hmmm...?
-
What does it have to do with my post? *%87 Hmmm...?
You were trying to assert the group did not have access to resources.
They clearly did.
Simple.
-
You were trying to assert the group did not have access to resources.
They clearly did.
Simple.
Oh right so are you actually saying they had access to a car as a matter of fact now? And your evidence is two mobile phones provided on the 4th May? &%%6
-
So we must now entertain the idea that somewhere in PdL the McCanns may have a secret contact, prepared to lend them a car to dispose of a body, a secret person that have never been identified or even mooted by the authorities but is nevertheless guilty of assisting in the crime of body disposal. We must also entertain the idea that despite allegedly being seen traipsing around town with an uncovered corpse that Gerry found time following this to hook up with the secret person to borrow the car and drive off in the middle of the night to hide the body forever.
*%87 &%%6
-
Oh right so are you actually saying they had access to a car as a matter of fact now? And your evidence is two mobile phones provided on the 4th May? &%%6
I said they had access to resources.
You asserted they did not. Which is clearly wrong.
-
You were trying to assert the group did not have access to resources.
They clearly did.
Simple.
The phones came courtesy of Fiona's brother in law, who wouldn't have got to hear about Madeleine until the early hours of the morning, but who was able to make contact with someone in Portugal, who was able to delver them before noon.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Reply "The, I mean, the other, there was a, the other person who contacted me which I didn't mention while I was at the Police Station was one of the Portuguese err newspapers and err you know asking, you know for comments and err so that could have been what the, you know, the number. I spoke, I did speak to the other, the friends of Simon ALDRIDGE'S who you know who kindly bought the phones and they actually bought the phones to the Portim' Police Station and I went downstairs and got the phones and then err brought them back upstairs. Err in terms of you know whether I, we spoke to them on the next day sorry, was that the question''
-
So we must now entertain the idea that somewhere in PdL the McCanns may have a secret contact, prepared to lend them a car to dispose of a body, a secret person that have never been identified or even mooted by the authorities but is nevertheless guilty of assisting in the crime of body disposal. We must also entertain the idea that despite allegedly being seen traipsing around town with an uncovered corpse that Gerry found time following this to hook up with the secret person to borrow the car and drive off in the middle of the night to hide the body forever.
*%87 &%%6
That's a cross between propaganda and hysteria.
If it looks likes Clarence and it smells like Clarence and it talks like Clarence then ....
(&^&
-
I said they had access to resources.
You asserted they did not. Which is clearly wrong.
Did I? Perhaps you can provide a cite. I said they did not have access to a car. They did not.
-
That's a cross between propaganda and hysteria.
If it looks likes Clarence and it smells like Clarence and it talks like Clarence then ....
(&^&
Are you under the impression that I am Clarence Mitchell now? *%87
Perhaps you can tell me what your exhaustive investigations have uncovered in terms of evidence that the McCanns had access to a car over the night of the 3rd and morning of the 4th May 2007?
-
The phones came courtesy of Fiona's brother in law, who wouldn't have got to hear about Madeleine until the early hours of the morning, but who was able to make contact with someone in Portugal, who was able to delver them before noon.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Reply "The, I mean, the other, there was a, the other person who contacted me which I didn't mention while I was at the Police Station was one of the Portuguese err newspapers and err you know asking, you know for comments and err so that could have been what the, you know, the number. I spoke, I did speak to the other, the friends of Simon ALDRIDGE'S who you know who kindly bought the phones and they actually bought the phones to the Portim' Police Station and I went downstairs and got the phones and then err brought them back upstairs. Err in terms of you know whether I, we spoke to them on the next day sorry, was that the question''
Skim-reading through the latest argument.
Well done for finding the relevant cite, Jassi.
-
The phones came courtesy of Fiona's brother in law, who wouldn't have got to hear about Madeleine until the early hours of the morning, but who was able to make contact with someone in Portugal, who was able to delver them before noon.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Reply "The, I mean, the other, there was a, the other person who contacted me which I didn't mention while I was at the Police Station was one of the Portuguese err newspapers and err you know asking, you know for comments and err so that could have been what the, you know, the number. I spoke, I did speak to the other, the friends of Simon ALDRIDGE'S who you know who kindly bought the phones and they actually bought the phones to the Portim' Police Station and I went downstairs and got the phones and then err brought them back upstairs. Err in terms of you know whether I, we spoke to them on the next day sorry, was that the question''
Thanks Jassi for that. *&(+(+
I have two comments to make.
First, trying to read David Payne's rogatory is a surefire way of sending me to sleep.
Second, if I could make next day delivery work in Portugal, you will be invited to a sumptuous feast on board my luxury yacht anchored conveniently for you in Faro marina. You will get to choose your menu in advance, so that we can get the freshest of the freshest of your choice. Our executive chef will cook it exactly as you wish, whilst the captain of the yacht heads us to your destination on the Algarve.
Now all I need to do is work out how to make next day delivery work in the Algarve. *%87
-
Thanks Jassi for that. *&(+(+
I have two comments to make.
First, trying to read David Payne's rogatory is a surefire way of sending me to sleep.
Second, if I could make next day delivery work in Portugal, you will be invited to a sumptuous feast on board my luxury yacht anchored conveniently for you in Faro marina. You will get to choose your menu in advance, so that we can get the freshest of the freshest of your choice. Our executive chef will cook it exactly as you wish, whilst the captain of the yacht heads us to your destination on the Algarve.
Now all I need to do is work out how to make next day delivery work in the Algarve. *%87
*%87
-
Thanks Jassi for that. *&(+(+
I have two comments to make.
First, trying to read David Payne's rogatory is a surefire way of sending me to sleep.
Second, if I could make next day delivery work in Portugal, you will be invited to a sumptuous feast on board my luxury yacht anchored conveniently for you in Faro marina. You will get to choose your menu in advance, so that we can get the freshest of the freshest of your choice. Our executive chef will cook it exactly as you wish, whilst the captain of the yacht heads us to your destination on the Algarve.
Now all I need to do is work out how to make next day delivery work in the Algarve. *%87
I think you need friends already out there who can go to a shop, purchase items and then personally deliver them later that day.
And barely before the news of the disappearance was common knowledge to the public 8(0(*
-
To date, I have not been able to establish who delivered two mobiles to the Portimão PJ station on 4 May, nor why, nor how.
Someone was very quick to be a Guardian Angel in the Algarve.
Hmmm? *%87
How long have you been trying to establish the answer to this, quite well known fact
-
I think you need friends already out there who can go to a shop, purchase items and then personally deliver them later that day.
And barely before the news of the disappearance was common knowledge to the public 8(0(*
Barely after I would say.
-
Barely after I would say.
Yes, that's really what I meant, but it came out wrong 8(8-))
-
How long have you been trying to establish the answer to this, quite well known fact
Perhaps you should address the point made.
Either access to local support, or no access.
Simple.
-
Yes, that's really what I meant, but it came out wrong 8(8-))
Never mind. A senior moment. We all have them. 8(0(*
-
Perhaps you should address the point made.
Either access to local support, or no access.
Simple.
I will address which point I wish to
-
Perhaps you should address the point made.
Either access to local support, or no access.
Simple.
The question was - access to a car on the night 3rd May / morning 4th May. What have you uncovered to support this fantasy?
-
So we must now entertain the idea that somewhere in PdL the McCanns may have a secret contact, prepared to lend them a car to dispose of a body, a secret person that have never been identified or even mooted by the authorities but is nevertheless guilty of assisting in the crime of body disposal. We must also entertain the idea that despite allegedly being seen traipsing around town with an uncovered corpse that Gerry found time following this to hook up with the secret person to borrow the car and drive off in the middle of the night to hide the body forever.
*%87 &%%6
I couldn't have put it better myself. What absolute nonsense.
-
Not sure why they should need access to a vehicle so early on. Removal to final destination - e.g. the industrial chipper - could have been much later. IMO
-
I said they had access to resources.
You asserted they did not. Which is clearly wrong.
You are splitting hairs.
-
The question was - access to a car on the night 3rd May / morning 4th May. What have you uncovered to support this fantasy?
Kindly prove it is a fantasy. &^^&*
-
You are splitting hairs.
Isn't that the name of the game on here ?
-
Isn't that the name of the game on here ?
Not with me it isn't.
-
Kindly prove it is a fantasy. &^^&*
I can’t prove there aren’t pixies at the bottom of my garden but I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. The McCann did not have access to a car on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. Nor did they have access to a volcano, a pet crematorium, a dead dog, a yew tree or any of the other crackpot “resources” conspiracy theorists have suggested over the years.
-
I couldn't have put it better myself. What absolute nonsense.
I have to agree.
-
I have to agree.
Are you sure??
-
Are you sure??
Faith is just trying to be a bit of a smarty pants.
-
I will address which point I wish to
From previous experience, I know you will.
&^^&*
-
Are you sure??
Yep. I’m sure that if there was another vehicle the thorough Portuguese investigation would have uncovered it.
-
I can’t prove there aren’t pixies at the bottom of my garden but I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. The McCann did not have access to a car on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. Nor did they have access to a volcano, a pet crematorium, a dead dog, a yew tree or any of the other crackpot “resources” conspiracy theorists have suggested over the years.
The McCanns claimed to have run up Black Rock, which is volcanic.
More desperate hyperbole.
-
Yep. I’m sure that if there was another vehicle the thorough Portuguese investigation would have uncovered it.
Thank you.
-
The McCanns claimed to have run up Black Rock, which is volcanic.
More desperate hyperbole.
And more insults from you.
-
And more insults from you.
Who's being insulted ?
-
And more insults from you.
Goading.
-
Who's being insulted ?
Me of course.
-
Goading.
May I remind you that you have accused me of being like Clarence Mitchell, of spouting propaganda, of desperation and of hysteria all in the space of the last few pages of this thread. I would call that goading, personally.
-
That's a cross between propaganda and hysteria.
If it looks likes Clarence and it smells like Clarence and it talks like Clarence then ....
(&^&
goading.
-
To date, I have not been able to establish who delivered two mobiles to the Portimão PJ station on 4 May, nor why, nor how.
Someone was very quick to be a Guardian Angel in the Algarve.
Hmmm? *%87
Something Kate forgot to mention in her book. Unless she didn't know about these phones, of course.
-
Ate most of his dinner? No wonder people can't solve the case. They don't have a clue about the timeline.
by the time Russell had got back to the table err he’d err they’d err they’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Gerry wasn't in the pool area. David and Matt were the two men searching there.
Quote -
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
Russell had eaten half of his dinner.
A waiter saw Gerry searching around the pool area.
Jeronimo Rodrigues -
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
-
May I remind you that you have accused me of being like Clarence Mitchell, of spouting propaganda, of desperation and of hysteria all in the space of the last few pages of this thread. I would call that goading, personally.
I’d call it accurate.
-
I’d call it accurate.
More insults but glad to see you’ve finally caved in and taken me off ignore. I really was missing your nasty comments. @)(++(*.
Strange that you would both agree with my post and also agree that it was desperate propaganda, hysterical and desperate... *%87
-
I’d call it accurate.
But you are, wrong re just about everything
-
May I remind you that you have accused me of being like Clarence Mitchell, of spouting propaganda, of desperation and of hysteria all in the space of the last few pages of this thread. I would call that goading, personally.
My advice is to click the report to moderator button.
&^^&*
-
My advice is to click the report to moderator button.
&^^&*
You’re protected so there’s no point.
-
Quote -
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
Russell had eaten half of his dinner.
A waiter saw Gerry searching around the pool area.
Yes I know but it was Matt with Dave (see in bold above). I know where Gerry was and he didn't even say he searched there in his arguido interview or any other interview.
-
Ate most of his dinner? No wonder people can't solve the case. They don't have a clue about the timeline.
by the time Russell had got back to the table err he’d err they’d err they’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Gerry wasn't in the pool area. David and Matt were the two men searching there.
I read that Gerry was seen near the pool.
"The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas." Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas Date: 2007/05/06
-
More insults but glad to see you’ve finally caved in and taken me off ignore. I really was missing your nasty comments. @)(++(*.
Strange that you would both agree with my post and also agree that it was desperate propaganda, hysterical and desperate... *%87
I haven’t, there seems to be a glitch on the system.
-
I haven’t, there seems to be a glitch on the system.
Oh, what a shame. 8(8-))
-
You’re protected so there’s no point.
What?????? (&^&
-
Oh, what a shame. 8(8-))
It sure is 8()(((@#
-
I read that Gerry was seen near the pool.
"The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas." Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas Date: 2007/05/06
Now corroborate that with Gerry's statements and interviews?
For example: David Payne corroborated it
"I did a sweep of the err the pool err and the area you know immediately around err the Ocean Club, then met up with Matt and err Russell." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
What?????? (&^&
Have you ever received warning points?
-
Have you ever received warning points?
Why should I receive warning points?
I am a kind, considerate, thoughtful poster.
Why would I need a bent moderator, aka Guardian Angel?
-
Why should I receive warning points?
I am a kind, considerate, thoughtful poster.
Why would I need a bent moderator, aka Guardian Angel?
-
Why should I receive warning points?
I am a kind, considerate, thoughtful poster.
Why would I need a bent moderator, aka Guardian Angel?
@)(++(*. What hyperbole. Kind, considerate and thoughtful are not the first three words that come to mind when I read your replies to my posts. 8(8-))
-
@)(++(*. What hyperbole. Kind, considerate and thoughtful are not the first three words that come to mind when I read your replies to my posts. 8(8-))
Perhaps your mix of ingredients would be better with less hyperbole?
Just a thought.
-
Perhaps your mix of ingredients would be better with less hyperbole?
Just a thought.
Perhaps it would be kinder of you not to point out all my perceived failings? You run the risk of hurting my feelings, which, being the thoughtful and considerate person you are, I know you will be keen to avoid. 8((()*/
-
Skim-reading to catch up.
Some kind soul offered two phones, presumably with PT SIMs.
(Credit to Jassi for digging up the cite.)
But what's this about a car?
-
Skim-reading to catch up.
Some kind soul offered two phones, presumably with PT SIMs.
(Credit to Jassi for digging up the cite.)
But what's this about a car?
G-Unit claimed we couldn’t rule out the possibility that the McCanns had access to a car the night Madeleine went missing. I claimed we could. I was then asked to prove that they didn’t have access to a car. *%87
-
Ah, ok. Not sure anyone could prove that I haven't been to the moon.
Is there any reliable witness who definitely saw one or both McCanns in a car that evening, or at any point between their arrival and the disappeance?
-
Ah, ok. Not sure anyone could prove that I haven't been to the moon.
Is there any reliable witness who definitely saw one or both McCanns in a car that evening, or at any point between their arrival and the disappeance?
”Prove there isn’t” will be the reply.
-
Now corroborate that with Gerry's statements and interviews?
For example: David Payne corroborated it
"I did a sweep of the err the pool err and the area you know immediately around err the Ocean Club, then met up with Matt and err Russell." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
This seems to run through the whole'statements' of T9 nothing seems to fit...
I found this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6LkoAHyPoc
-
This seems to run through the whole'statements' of T9 nothing seems to fit...
I found this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6LkoAHyPoc
Listening to this there seems to be a lot of sources of information that I'm not familiar with but at the rate the information is thrown at you there is no time to recall the source, and there is only a few references given.
-
I wonder how this commentator got to know about the footage from the other restaurant, with a girl in it similar to Madeleine. Does anyone know about this?
It comes up fairly soon after this point https://youtu.be/E6LkoAHyPoc?t=1732
-
I wonder how this commentator got to know about the footage from the other restaurant, with a girl in it similar to Madeleine. Does anyone know about this?
It comes up fairly soon after this point https://youtu.be/E6LkoAHyPoc?t=1732
It was an early press report, Rob. The manager (or whoever) seems to have got mixed up with another family.
-
It was an early press report, Rob. The manager (or whoever) seems to have got mixed up with another family.
So what have we got then, another family in PdL at the same time with a very similar looking daughter. You know that could be more significant than we realise.
-
Listening to this there seems to be a lot of sources of information that I'm not familiar with but at the rate the information is thrown at you there is no time to recall the source, and there is only a few references given.
Yes, all sources are mentioned in the end credits. I love the song/music to this.
Carana is correct about the little girl- thanks Carana.
-
Yes, all sources are mentioned in the end credits. I love the song/music to this.
Carana is correct about the little girl- thanks Carana.
I didn't get to the end. I'll have a look at how they make their references. Thanks.
-
I wonder how this commentator got to know about the footage from the other restaurant, with a girl in it similar to Madeleine. Does anyone know about this?
It comes up fairly soon after this point https://youtu.be/E6LkoAHyPoc?t=1732
Here's one of the news reports, Rob.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/revealed-gerry-mccanns-last-dance-with-little-madeleine-6620288.html
-
Here's one of the news reports, Rob.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/revealed-gerry-mccanns-last-dance-with-little-madeleine-6620288.html
Did the PJ identify that Dad and child?
-
Yes, all sources are mentioned in the end credits. ... snip ....
That list of names is hardly helpful references. I think you have exaggerated what you call " all sources are mentioned in the end credits". That is as long as we are seeing the same thing.
What I'm talking about starts https://youtu.be/E6LkoAHyPoc?t=2216. Is that the "end credits" you refer to?
-
Moderation
I have this morning instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum. This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease. Posters who continue to flaunt the rules despite this warning will be subject to a ban without further notice.