Re: Now Debbie Butler calls in a graphologist to examine even more postcards

by Guest 03.01.10 16:11

badmanners (quote) I find the Roagtories completely unremarkable - except for Jane Tanner's partner's outburst in her defence, which I find rather touching.
I have said before why I don't blame them for not going back for the year-plus late 'reconstruction', which no doubt would have allowed the slavering wolves of the then obediently hostile PT press to get another few bites in.

I find the rogatories quite unbelievable, considering they had months to think about what to say. As for you not blaming them for not going back for a reconstruction, you are more worried about what the PT press would say, than helping to find Madeleine. Who cares what the press would say, it's not about them, it's about Madeleine!!

by Guest 03.01.10 16:19

How would a reconstruction a year later help to find Madeleine?
It wouldn't. The reconstruction was meant to reconstruct their movements that night. But how could that work without all the other people attending, like the other dinner guests, the waiters, Wilkins?

Yet they wanted to participate until the PJ sent that rather abrupt email...

by Guest 03.01.10 16:26

Molly wrote:How would a reconstruction a year later help to find Madeleine?
It wouldn't. The reconstruction was meant to reconstruct their movements that night. But how could that work without all the other people attending, like the other dinner guests, the waiters, Wilkins?

Yet they wanted to participate until the PJ sent that rather abrupt email...

Hew do we know if the waiters etc., wouldn't have participated? It may not have helped find Madeleine, but there may always have been a slight chance that it would. Why would it hurt for them to participate? To see the people most involved in situ, acting out their timeline. It gives a much better understanding of who was where and when, rather than all the erm and inconsistencies in the statements. Seeing people actually act it out, would be more helpful, and before anyone says they could have used replacements, well that is impossible. You saw first hand in the McCann documentary, when Jane Tanner disagreed with Gerry on where she was standing. These sort of details, would have been discussed, enacted, and hammered out between them, giving the PJ a detailed picture of what had occurred that night.

by preciousramotswe 03.01.10 16:57

candyfloss wrote:badmanners (quote) I find the Roagtories completely unremarkable - except for Jane Tanner's partner's outburst in her defence, which I find rather touching.
I have said before why I don't blame them for not going back for the year-plus late 'reconstruction', which no doubt would have allowed the slavering wolves of the then obediently hostile PT press to get another few bites in.

I find the rogatories quite unbelievable, considering they had months to think about what to say. As for you not blaming them for not going back for a reconstruction, you are more worried about what the PT press would say, than helping to find Madeleine. Who cares what the press would say, it's not about them, it's about Madeleine!!

The reconstruction was not designed to help find Madeleine. Read the files.
The reconstruction was to iron out alleged 'discrepancies' among witnesses. It would not have thrown new light on who took Madeleine - it wasn't suposed to. In effect, it was for the PJ to confirm to their own satisfaction that there could have been an abduction.

Now, if I had been either the parents or one of the group - I would be banging my head on the wall and mouthing 'of course there was a fucking abduction' through gritted teeth.

And then I would probably have decided that the entire idea was indeed a waste of time and stayed at home.

by Guest 03.01.10 17:13

badmanners wrote:
candyfloss wrote:badmanners (quote) I find the Roagtories completely unremarkable - except for Jane Tanner's partner's outburst in her defence, which I find rather touching.
I have said before why I don't blame them for not going back for the year-plus late 'reconstruction', which no doubt would have allowed the slavering wolves of the then obediently hostile PT press to get another few bites in.

I find the rogatories quite unbelievable, considering they had months to think about what to say. As for you not blaming them for not going back for a reconstruction, you are more worried about what the PT press would say, than helping to find Madeleine. Who cares what the press would say, it's not about them, it's about Madeleine!!

The reconstruction was not designed to help find Madeleine. Read the files.
The reconstruction was to iron out alleged 'discrepancies' among witnesses. It would not have thrown new light on who took Madeleine - it wasn't suposed to. In effect, it was for the PJ to confirm to their own satisfaction that there could have been an abduction.

Now, if I had been either the parents or one of the group - I would be banging my head on the wall and mouthing 'of course there was a fucking abduction' through gritted teeth.

And then I would probably have decided that the entire idea was indeed a waste of time and stayed at home.

Ah, so you agree there are discrepancies among the statements! So, if it was to iron out these discrepances, don't you think it would have helped then? Wouldn't it have made for a more coherent timeline? Wouldn't it have helped in identifying, an exact window of oppurtunity. And if it was to confirm to the PJ it was an abduction, then don't you think that would have helped. The case would have been archived as a definite abduction, and we wouldn't be here arguing the toss.

by DCB1 03.01.10 17:16

".........The case would have been archived as a definite abduction, and we wouldn't be here arguing the toss."

Maybe the authorities should not have been looking to archive the case.

by preciousramotswe 03.01.10 17:23

candyfloss wrote:
badmanners wrote:
candyfloss wrote:badmanners (quote) I find the Roagtories completely unremarkable - except for Jane Tanner's partner's outburst in her defence, which I find rather touching.
I have said before why I don't blame them for not going back for the year-plus late 'reconstruction', which no doubt would have allowed the slavering wolves of the then obediently hostile PT press to get another few bites in.

I find the rogatories quite unbelievable, considering they had months to think about what to say. As for you not blaming them for not going back for a reconstruction, you are more worried about what the PT press would say, than helping to find Madeleine. Who cares what the press would say, it's not about them, it's about Madeleine!!

The reconstruction was not designed to help find Madeleine. Read the files.
The reconstruction was to iron out alleged 'discrepancies' among witnesses. It would not have thrown new light on who took Madeleine - it wasn't suposed to. In effect, it was for the PJ to confirm to their own satisfaction that there could have been an abduction.

Now, if I had been either the parents or one of the group - I would be banging my head on the wall and mouthing 'of course there was a fucking abduction' through gritted teeth.

And then I would probably have decided that the entire idea was indeed a waste of time and stayed at home.

Ah, so you agree there are discrepancies among the statements! So, if it was to iron out these discrepances, don't you think it would have helped then? Wouldn't it have made for a more coherent timeline? Wouldn't it have helped in identifying, an exact window of oppurtunity. And if it was to confirm to the PJ it was an abduction, then don't you think that would have helped. The case would have been archived as a definite abduction, and we wouldn't be here arguing the toss.

No, candyfloss. I said 'The reconstruction was to iron out alleged 'discrepancies' among witnesses'. See the difference there?

And do you honestly, really think that if the PJ and prosecutor had decided to their satisfaction that there was definitely an abduction, and managed to overcome their natural reluctance to say so after the pride of their judiciary had sacrificed so much time and effort on the alternative theory, then we wouldn't be discussing it now? Do you not know there are whole blogs and forums out there still claiming the Smart kidnap was a hoax? Or that the Moon landings never happened? Some will never be convinced, because they have invested too much time in the fiction of parental evil.

As for Madeleine, deciding exactly when she was taken to within even a few minures was not going tp help find her, eighteen months down the line.
The cops had two matching sightings - the focus needed to be there, in the earliest possible days. The idea of a reconstruction so far after the event, and for such limited aims, looks to me like face-saving.

by Nits 03.01.10 18:21

badmanners wrote:
candyfloss wrote:badmanners (quote) I find the Roagtories completely unremarkable - except for Jane Tanner's partner's outburst in her defence, which I find rather touching.
I have said before why I don't blame them for not going back for the year-plus late 'reconstruction', which no doubt would have allowed the slavering wolves of the then obediently hostile PT press to get another few bites in.

I find the rogatories quite unbelievable, considering they had months to think about what to say. As for you not blaming them for not going back for a reconstruction, you are more worried about what the PT press would say, than helping to find Madeleine. Who cares what the press would say, it's not about them, it's about Madeleine!!

The reconstruction was not designed to help find Madeleine. Read the files.
The reconstruction was to iron out alleged 'discrepancies' among witnesses. It would not have thrown new light on who took Madeleine - it wasn't suposed to. In effect, it was for the PJ to confirm to their own satisfaction that there could have been an abduction.

Now, if I had been either the parents or one of the group - I would be banging my head on the wall and mouthing 'of course there was a fucking abduction' through gritted teeth.

And then I would probably have decided that the entire idea was indeed a waste of time and stayed at home.

Hold on a sec although I understand what you are saying, The reconsruction the Mcs did or at least one of them plus one of their friends was immediatley put into question because Jane Tanner wasn't beleived, What was it said by one of the defectives Oh that doesn't matter I dont recall the words verbatum but I do recall JT being totally dismissed. So it wasn't a complete waste of time because GM and JT and maybe RO took centre stage what happened to the rest of them.

Nits

by vaguely 03.01.10 18:26

vaguely wrote:Well, I didn't write the anonymous letter, and I can't see Essex Police commissioning a graphologist.

Can I ask why you can't see Essex Police paying for graphology services?

ty

by Nits 03.01.10 19:28

Is it me or has it gone a bit grey in here.

I Want to know he answer to a serious question how come Mr B gets his own detective meetings and all for a spat with a partner in a foundation, When I have 1 full time Policeman in a 20 mile radios. If and I have called the police about next door being broken into I get a crime number over the phone and a visit two days later.Meanwhile next door is minus its contents. Had to laugh the police man said to me "Mrs Z did you see anything unusual" Erm yes someone breaking into next door

I want Mr Bs Police force.

Perhaps this isn't in the right forum,

Oh Well
Nits

by Guest 03.01.10 19:34

Is it me or has it gone a bit grey in here.(quote Nits)

Just asked Jill, on other thread. Can't see this as well with my eyes, it's all blurring :oops:

by vaguely 03.01.10 19:46

Nits wrote:Is it me or has it gone a bit grey in here.

I Want to know he answer to a serious question how come Mr B gets his own detective meetings and all for a spat with a partner in a foundation, When I have 1 full time Policeman in a 20 mile radios. If and I have called the police about next door being broken into I get a crime number over the phone and a visit two days later.Meanwhile next door is minus its contents. Had to laugh the police man said to me "Mrs Z did you see anything unusual" Erm yes someone breaking into next door

I want Mr Bs Police force.

Perhaps this isn't in the right forum,

Oh Well
Nits

Well maybe you need to question your forces practices and accuse them of corruption, write more letters, publicly post up their correspondence. You may get a better service.

Log in for more topics