Wrong reactions/contradictory statements

by **tigger** 05.11.11 21:27

I'm starting this off with the obvious one:

DNA in the car etc:
How can this be? Does this mean she is dead? Who has hired this car before us? Because it probably is a local rental firm with a limited fleet.

Not first the dirty nappies and rotting meat, the six cadavers and cuddlecat and earlier, Maddie's DNA because of her dirty pyjamas (which a few weeks earlier had been washed).

Maddie has been abducted by a paedophile/there is no evidence that she has been harmed. Surely that would be a first?

by Gillyspot 05.11.11 21:46

Right back to the start.

Kate McCann & Gerry knowing she had been "abducted" (then taking over 30 mins to call the GNR).

Knowing you had left the door unlocked (if they had) wouldn't your first thought be OMG she has wandered off?

by delly55 05.11.11 22:08

In the same circumstances (not that I would have ever been in the same circumstances as them, as I take my responsibilities as a parent seriously) I would have thought my son had wandered off! Kids love to explore, but they love knowing their parents are close by even more! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Gillyspot 05.11.11 22:37

What loving parent would firstly leave kids alone, secondly in "allegedly" unlocked apartment, thirdly scream abduction without searching?

by Nina 05.11.11 23:21

Daughter discovered missing at 10pm [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] but wait until first light to go searching for her, for an hour. Then tell over and over that you are working very hard to search for her.

by Smokeandmirrors 06.11.11 6:27

I don't think any of their statements or utterances have sounded "right" and that is why there is a substantial group of people who feel the whole thing is a complete farce. Sometimes it feels as though if there is such a thing as a correct reaction or statement to such a situation, then at every opportunity they have done the opposite. The last four years has been ample time for TM to have a good think, bearing in mind their every publicly spoken word has been analysed and disected and yet we still find a situation where "lessons need to be learnt". Their advisors IMHO have done them a huge dis-service. It's not rocket science to deliver ones message in a reasonable fashion and there are people whose profession it is to help people get their point effectively into the public domain. Look at Clarence for example. That was what he was for and what a waste of money he turned out to be. Made the whole thing worse.

All the well documented issues that don't sit right with a good many people have never been adressed by the Team, never. Virtually none of the inconsistencies or co-incidences have actually been refuted with a "correct" explanation, nothng. Just the same few statements churned out like a broken record. And no evidence to back up their statements. Humbug.

by Shibboleth 06.11.11 6:39

Nothing valuable was taken. It was like discovering that you had overdrawn on your bank account.

by **PeterMac** 06.11.11 8:13

When a dog doesn't immediately come back into your house at night, you go out and call its name, whistle and shout in all directions.
When a child is missing you thrown yourself on the floor and roar like a bull and ring the press and your family in Scotland and hang around indoors just sitting silently ?
Logical, Captain !

by Guest 06.11.11 8:45

Gerry lifting up and searching underneath all the divan beds that have a gap of just 3 inches !! Yet Madeleine's bed still looks untouched.

by **tigger** 06.11.11 8:46

Shibboleth wrote:Nothing valuable was taken. It was like discovering that you had overdrawn on your bank account.

I'd forgotten that one, it really takes the biscuit! But also a weird simile to use. How many of us haven't been overdrawn - it wouldn't be a great shock, just the usual money shortage. Certainly nothing to compare to losing a child!
Now: it was like my life crashed down around me, that I would understand.

Nothing valuable was taken or nothing of value was missing, that came up before midnight on the 3rd in the phone calls to the family.
It was duly passed on to the media by Phil I think. I also feel she must have a crib sheet, because I find her quoting verbatim from time to time for different situations.

by **tigger** 06.11.11 8:57

PeterMac wrote:When a dog doesn't immediately come back into your house at night, you go out and call its name, whistle and shout in all directions.
When a child is missing you thrown yourself on the floor and roar like a bull and ring the press and your family in Scotland and hang around indoors just sitting silently ?
Logical, Captain !

Roaring like a bull...Hmm. You posted an instruction for a freemason asking for help which is very similar to Gerry's antics. It would be comical if it weren't for Maddie. Then Kate makes much of Gerry roaring like a bull in the book (cover up some more) and when it appeared that the GNR certainly didn't have a clue what he was doing, they both repeated the gesture indoors.
Roaring like a bull isn't likely to bring your toddler out of hiding if she was lost in the dark in any case. Calling her name?

Gerry said to mrs. Fenn that 'a little girl has gone missing'. This was less than half an hour into the disappearance. By dint of scanning our fora, I'm sure Kate thought it useful to slag Mrs. Fenn off - showing herself up again if it was true. Because she writes that Fiona and she called Mrs. Fenn a few choice names. All this within half an hour or so of your child going missing?

by Shibboleth 06.11.11 8:58

Yes Tiger, a statement for me that was truly astonishing. I remember thinking - is this man insane?

by **tigger** 06.11.11 9:04

Yvonne Martin got a wrong reaction too imo:

1. you've been up all night, your three year old has disappeared, you're surrounded by Portugese speaking officials plus your friends. But as yet you do not have a translator or know anything of the country's police procedure, status of lost children etc.
2. a woman who is both expert at child protection and can prove this, who speaks Portugese and has experience with cases where children have disappeared, comes and offers her help for free.
3. you cling to her like a drowning woman, she will be able to tell you what can be done, translate, give advice.

Not a bit of it, Mrs. Martin gets the red card, in the book she is nothing short of an interfering little busy body.

by **tigger** 06.11.11 9:10

Shibboleth wrote: Yes Tiger, a statement for me that was truly astonishing. I remember thinking - is this man insane?

Yes!

More pearls of wisdom: 'They've got nothing on us!' ????

Whilst they were arguidos and the news came that they were sure Maddie's body was in the reservoir which divers were investigating:

'That is fantastic news!'

Somehow none of that really works with 'no evidence that Maddie has been harmed'.
The right reaction would have been one of despair and grief that your hopes of finding her alive seem to have vanished.
'I hope and pray not' would fit the bill there.

by Upsy Daisy 06.11.11 12:32

the biggest alarm bell(s) for me :-

Kate, upon discovering her daughter has 'been taken', runs out of the very same apartment leaving behind her two defenseless twins and goes back to rally up her friends, whilst an intruder/abductor could have been waiting around to cause further harm. Any normal parent would grab both twins with all the strength they had in them and run!! Fast !! Screaming!! You just simply would NOT leave them in there!

Then...............she goes off galavanting across Europe, etc. in marketing campaigns and leaves her twins behind in the very same resort where a possible abductor or child molester, etc. could either be working or living in the very vicinity her daughter was 'abducted' from.

WRONG!!! very wrong behaviour.

by Angelique 06.11.11 13:23

Shibboleth wrote:Nothing valuable was taken. It was like discovering that you had overdrawn on your bank account.

Yes - this is a most telling statement - why ? Because Gerry is showing us what his priorities are - Money!

Not his child who has supposedly been "abducted" and fearing for her safety and what she may be suffering - what does he think about - Money!

by Buildersbum 06.11.11 16:26

Gerry after 10days planning a one year anniversary concert for Maddie, even though she could have turned up at any moment........unless he knew different[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 06.11.11 16:35

was in an interview with a Sky journalist, name of Ian Woods I think :

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you
as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a
week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could
not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength
come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and
what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so
much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we
discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but,
you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to
get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the
scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The
response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us
thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to
focus on what we really needed to focus on.

to be fair to GMcC, he did not compare the loss of his child to finding that he was overdrawn, he was comparing the emptiness he felt inside to when there is nothing in the bank. I am no fan of the man, but to take a quote out of context is not the correct thing to do.

by Angelique 06.11.11 16:42

russiandoll

True - but what does he mean here:

snipped from your quote:

"but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d"

When one is overdrawn at the Bank - we say we are in the "red" and when we are not overdrawn we say we are "in the black"

by **tigger** 06.11.11 17:30

Angelique wrote:russiandoll

True - but what does he mean here:

snipped from your quote:

"but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d"

When one is overdrawn at the Bank - we say we are in the "red" and when we are not overdrawn we say we are "in the black"

You're quite right to point that out, but it is still very telling imo that he compares the emotional emptiness to being in the red at the bank.
Perhaps that's just it, he can only be emotional about money and status. As is indicated by his behaviour when they were made arguidos. Then he cried.
You and I know what we would be like if we'd really just lost a child, in any way. You'd be thinking of a thousand ways you could have prevented it, and every minute of your waking life it would be there, that gap, that loss.

by russiandoll 06.11.11 18:39

to those who just replied to my post,yes... it is a strange analogy nonetheless. I simply wanted to put the entire quote there as I have read on numerous occasions the myth that GMcC compared finding his daughter missing to the feeling he had when finding he was overdrawn, one actually quoting his saying how he would feel if his student loan was overdrawn.
As for gradually getting into the black,the analogy is his trying to conjure up for the interviewer an image of slowly returning to being able to function in a more stable fashion and not feeling drained.
I find the whole analogy bizarre, but just wanted to clarify what he said, as I do not want to give those people who post vile stuff about us elsewhere any reason for abusing us for propagating myths.

by **tigger** 06.11.11 19:11

russiandoll wrote:to those who just replied to my post,yes... it is a strange analogy nonetheless. I simply wanted to put the entire quote there as I have read on numerous occasions the myth that GMcC compared finding his daughter missing to the feeling he had when finding he was overdrawn, one actually quoting his saying how he would feel if his student loan was overdrawn.
As for gradually getting into the black,the analogy is his trying to conjure up for the interviewer an image of slowly returning to being able to function in a more stable fashion and not feeling drained.
I find the whole analogy bizarre, but just wanted to clarify what he said, as I do not want to give those people who post vile stuff about us elsewhere any reason for abusing us for propagating myths.

100% right on that, the mods have enough trouble with trolls. We don't need to exaggerate or take things out of context, most of their statements in the public domain are quite outrageous enough as they are.

by Huddo 18.04.17 17:23

In her 4 May statement it is clear that Jane Tanner relieves her husband ROB before Kate goes to check her children at (allegedly) 10 pm. So when Kate enters her apartment Tanner is already in hers. Why did Kate not go to Jane to ask whether Madeleine was with her? She could not have known whether Jane had heard Madeleine crying as she walked to her own apartment, entered by the open patio doors, and to comfort Madeleine together with her own daughter who was ill, she needed to take Madeleine to her apartment. Upon seeing Madeleine gone this is surely one scenario Kate would have considered, even hoped for. Even with the window open, she could not have KNOWN that Jane did not open it. It was, in the moment of seeing Madeleine's bed empty a very plausible explanation, and one which she is bound to have wanted to check out. But Kate didn't e bother to ask Jane, just a short distance away, whether Madeleine was with her. She returned to the Tapas Bar, 130 metres away, saying "she's been taken". Just not plausible!

Furthermore, once she had ascertained that Madeleine wasn't with Jane, her immediate priorities would have been where there was immediate danger: roads, swimming pools, manholes etc outside. Not the cupboards etc in the apartment which she searched despite "knowing" she had been taken! The road to the north of the block should have been an immediate concern but at no point did she go out of the front door to see if Madeleine was there; she returned to the Tapas Bar, leaving the twins in an easily accessible apartment. Just not plausible!

by Phoebe 18.04.17 18:34

Excellent point Huddo! welcome

by **Tony Bennett** 18.04.17 23:13

Huddo wrote:In her 4 May statement it is clear that Jane Tanner relieves her husband ROB before Kate goes to check her children at (allegedly) 10 pm. So when Kate enters her apartment Tanner is already in hers. Why did Kate not go to Jane to ask whether Madeleine was with her? She could not have known whether Jane had heard Madeleine crying as she walked to her own apartment, entered by the open patio doors, and to comfort Madeleine together with her own daughter who was ill, she needed to take Madeleine to her apartment. Upon seeing Madeleine gone this is surely one scenario Kate would have considered, even hoped for. Even with the window open, she could not have KNOWN that Jane did not open it. It was, in the moment of seeing Madeleine's bed empty a very plausible explanation, and one which she is bound to have wanted to check out. But Kate didn't e bother to ask Jane, just a short distance away, whether Madeleine was with her. She returned to the Tapas Bar, 130 metres away, saying "she's been taken". Just not plausible!

Furthermore, once she had ascertained that Madeleine wasn't with Jane, her immediate priorities would have been where there was immediate danger: roads, swimming pools, manholes etc outside. Not the cupboards etc in the apartment which she searched despite "knowing" she had been taken! The road to the north of the block should have been an immediate concern but at no point did she go out of the front door to see if Madeleine was there; she returned to the Tapas Bar, leaving the twins in an easily accessible apartment. Just not plausible!

Welcome.

Within your post, you refer to a number of alleged events, namely:

1. Jane went to 'relieve' Russell, who (he says) was caring for a sick baby who had just vomited up on the sheets and was busy operating the washing machine and cleaning her up

2. Kate did a 'check' at about 10pm

3. Kate saw an open window

4. Kate ran 130 metres back to the Tapas restaurant, leaving the twins in the apartment

5. As she did so, she was shouting 'They've taken her'.

The problem is, as you probably recognise already, that there is no independent corroboration of these claims. Nothing whatsoever that can be verified.

Every one of them could be false. The entire evening could well have been no more than a rehearsed performance.

As for the open window...well, whose fingerprints were the only ones found on the window?

Clue: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]