Ricardo Paiva, "Kate McCann had a dream where she saw Maddie on a hillside"

[Wonderfulspam]

Kate would still be in deep grief after a mere 3 months - made even worse because she didn't know what had happened to her little girl.     Dreams during that time can be very vivid - and can reflect inner longings.    For all we know the intensity of her dream made her hope that someone had dumped Madeleine alive on a hillside where she could be found.

How do you know she didn't.

It's quite possible she did.

And she did.

[Wonderfulspam]

Grief i can agree with.

As to what happened that night and subsequently, you do not know.

It has to be tested in court.

It's pathetic isn't it.

They know Kate doesn't know, because Kate said so.

[Cornelius]

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word alleged.

By the way, continually making apologies for the McCann's at every turn......Don't you realise how ridiculously weak that makes your argument.

Of course he doesn't he is the most respected and highly thought of poster on this forum...so many posts of such quality.

[stephen25000]

It's pathetic isn't it.

They know Kate doesn't know, because Kate said so.

They do seem to worship the ground she walks on.

I've got no idea why. 8-)(--)

[stephen25000]

Of course he doesn't he is the most respected and highly thought of poster on this forum...so many posts of such quality.

 

[John]

The alleged phone call was late July 2007, almost 3 months after the disappearance. I think it's therefore pretty safe to say that Kate was suggesting the 'search' should be for a body (although not necessarily buried).

I mean't to post this last night but was distracted unfortunately.  I have checked Kate's book and there is no mention of any dream about seeing Madeleine on a hillside.  The only reference she makes to any dream is the one where she meets up with Madeleine at the crèche.

[Mr Gray]

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word alleged.

By the way, continually making apologies for the McCann's at every turn......Don't you realise how ridiculously weak that makes your argument.

Apologies at every turn...would you like to list the apologies I have made...you can't because you are wrong again.
All I do is correct the posts that are incorrect

[Mr Gray]

Quite possibly but as it is Insp Paiva who alleges the conversation it is not unreasonable to take his interpretation at face value. If Kate did say it and meant it a different way then fair enough but the very fact there is no mention of the incident in her own book just adds to the suspicion.....much like surpressing the Smithman efits.

Paiva is either being accused of lying or misinterpreting the incident. It can't be both.

His interpretation of the alleged phone call being a 'turning point' suggests that there may have been other suspicious behaviours displayed by the McCann's which may have in turn led Insp Paiva to question their role in the disappearance? He did after all spend time in their company.

do you have a source for paiva saying that...I thought it was the dogs that were turning point

[Angelo222]

Apologies at every turn...would you like to list the apologies I have made...you can't because you are wrong again.
All I do is correct the posts that are incorrect

In your opinion Mr Davel!!

[sadie]

That's rich coming from you Stephen, if you know what I mean

Nudge nudge

[Mr Gray]

In your opinion Mr Davel!!

yes but I have the praise of Cornelius who posted...



Of course he doesn't he is the most respected and highly thought of poster on this forum...so many posts of such quality.


so there you are...most respected no less

[Mr Gray]

Is this you attempting to 'correct the posts that are incorrect'?

is it incorrect

[Benice]

Quite possibly but as it is Insp Paiva who alleges the conversation it is not unreasonable to take his interpretation at face value. If Kate did say it and meant it a different way then fair enough but the very fact there is no mention of the incident in her own book just adds to the suspicion.....much like surpressing the Smithman efits.

Paiva is either being accused of lying or misinterpreting the incident. It can't be both.

His interpretation of the alleged phone call being a 'turning point' suggests that there may have been other suspicious behaviours displayed by the McCann's which may have in turn led Insp Paiva to question their role in the disappearance? He did after all spend time in their company.

Why does it have to mean something sinister because she didn't mention it in her book?    I expect she had lots of dreams -  surely you wouldn't expect her to mention every one of them?

I still can't get over the fact that 'grown up' policemen actually decided that an investigation had changed direction because of a DREAM!!!   What sort of professional policework is that?  It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad for Madeleine. 

[Mr Gray]

No

so do you have a source

[Benice]

Maybe it wasn't the dream. Maybe it was that Paiva's interpretation of the phone call was the first time that either of the McCann's had intimated anything other than finding Madeleine alive? Maybe Kate's body language had changed in a way that cast doubt and this phone call tipped things further along? Maybe that is what he meant by a change in direction?

Without being present for all previous conversations it's impossible to know.

According to Paiva it was the dream  which caused a change of direction in the case.   I ask again - what sort of policemen would claim that a major turning point in an investigation came about because of a dream - and expect to be taken seriously? .....  Well the Amaral team apparently - so what does that say about them?