Why Should We Believe the Parent’s When....?

[Venturi Swirl]

Because her statement doesn’t say that.

Yes it does.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[faithlilly]

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}

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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. 

[Carana]

Faith, why do you assume that Gerry was lying and that Kate was retro-fitting?

[Carana]

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.

[faithlilly]

Faith, why do you assume that Gerry was lying and that Kate was retro-fitting?

Because their own words suggest it.

[Venturi Swirl]

Because their own words suggest it.

In your rather biased opinion.

[faithlilly]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Erngath]

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!

[Eleanor]

Too much Libel creeping in.  I shall have to start Deleting if this carries on.

[Brietta]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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.