The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Forensic linguistics -

Page 18 of 18 Previous  1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by aiyoyo on 13.06.14 18:16

Exhibit KH1 might end up as toilet rolls for the Mrs in incarceration.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by juliet on 13.06.14 19:07

It is in Fiona 's rogatory. Near the end of the second interview I think. She describes Kate pondering whether it is best to lock the three year old in or leave the door open so she can come and find them in the Tapas bar.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 13.06.14 19:18

@juliet wrote:It is in Fiona 's rogatory. Near the end of the second interview I think.  She describes Kate pondering whether it is best to lock the three year old in or leave the door open so she can come and find them in the Tapas bar.


Ha! - so niceto be right... laughat 

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by juliet on 13.06.14 19:33

It is quite hard to find. It's after the description of the meal and Kate rushing back etc. Interesting stuff sbout David Psyne seeing the "angelic" children.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Hicks on 13.06.14 21:12

Don't know where to put this, hope here is ok.

Sorry if this has been said before.

I was watching the -Madeleine was here- video. Something jumped out at me. Listen to Kate explain about the 10.00pm check. This is at the beginning, She says." And to be honest,  I might have been tempted to turn around then but I just noticed that 'THE DOOR, THE BEDROOM DOOR WHERE THE THREE CHILDREN WERE SLEEPING WAS OPEN MUCH FURTHER THAN WE LEFT IT".

So Kate is telling us that NOBODY went to the McCann's apartment to check the children since they had left at 8.30. By Kate's own admission she has told us that Gerry McCann did not go and do his check otherwise he would have been responsible for the new position of the door or perhaps Russell O'Brien who was the last person 'supposedly' to have been in the apartment.
  

Kate you really didn't think that one through did you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by lj on 13.06.14 23:06

@juliet wrote:It is quite hard to find. It's after the description of the meal and Kate rushing back etc. Interesting stuff sbout David Psyne seeing the "angelic" children.


His description is very eery.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by missmar1 on 13.06.14 23:29

@Hicks wrote:Don't know where to put this, hope here is ok.

Sorry if this has been said before.

I was watching the -Madeleine was here- video. Something jumped out at me. Listen to Kate explain about the 10.00pm check. This is at the beginning, She says." And to be honest,  I might have been tempted to turn around then but I just noticed that 'THE DOOR, THE BEDROOM DOOR WHERE THE THREE CHILDREN WERE SLEEPING WAS OPEN MUCH FURTHER THAN WE LEFT IT".

So Kate is telling us that NOBODY went to the McCann's apartment to check the children since they had left at 8.30. By Kate's own admission she has told us that Gerry McCann did not go and do his check otherwise he would have been responsible for the new position of the door or perhaps Russell O'Brien who was the last person 'supposedly' to have been in the apartment.
  

Kate you really didn't think that one through did you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw.

That remark has always bothered me too !!  I may be wrong but I think it was Mathew Olfield who had supposedly made the last check before Kate's ?

Crimewatch even showed there were other people supposedly doing the "checking"  yet this remark from Kate gives a clear indication she fully expected the door to be in the same position as she and her husband had left it - ONE and a HALF HOURS earlier !!   A slip of the tongue per'haps before her brain was put into gear ?   Did AR and his team watch this programme I wonder ?

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Hicks on 14.06.14 13:46

No you are not wrong, it was Mathew Oldfield, my mistake.

You can see Kate pause for a moment just before she mentions the door, as if she's trying to get the story right in her head before she opens her mouth. The whole story is a lie as poor Madeleine had met her fate well before that time imo.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by PeterMac on 14.06.14 16:36

@Hicks wrote:No you are not wrong, it was Mathew Oldfield, my mistake.
You can see Kate pause for a moment just before she mentions the door, as if she's trying to get the story right in her head before she opens her mouth. The whole story is a lie as poor Madeleine had met her fate well before that time imo.

Quite.
In one short sentence she trashes Gerry's story AND Oldfield's.   She specifically indicates that both are lying.
And even more interestingly - or not - as with so many of the contradictions there has never been an attempt to explain which of the many "versions" is the correct one.

She also includes this nonsense in Exhibit KH 1  after a long paragraph about what Gerry and MO had done when they went - about which she can have no idea at all, obviously.
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors, as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it."

Listen, Kate / Janet  you s****  b****, if two people have visited the apartment and entered the room and checked the children  - - WHY would you expect to find the door at the 'same angle', particularly when you then go on to invent a mini-micro climate (nano-climate ?)  which produced sudden gusts of Force 5 confined to your apartment and to nowhere else along the entire Atlantic Coast capable of slamming the door, even though you were holding onto it, and then whooshing 2.3 m long full length curtains, even through they were tucked firmly down between the unmade bed and the wall,  and behind the wicker chair, and tucked themselves back down behind the bed and the wall, and behind the wicker chair before the photographers came.
You are trying too hard.  And you have failed.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by aquila on 14.06.14 16:43

@PeterMac wrote:
@Hicks wrote:No you are not wrong, it was Mathew Oldfield, my mistake.
You can see Kate pause for a moment just before she mentions the door, as if she's trying to get the story right in her head before she opens her mouth. The whole story is a lie as poor Madeleine had met her fate well before that time imo.

Quite.
In one short sentence she trashes Gerry's story AND Oldfield's.   She specifically indicates that both are lying.
And even more interestingly - or not - as with so many of the contradictions there has never been an attempt to explain which of the many "versions" is the correct one.

She also includes this nonsense in Exhibit KH 1  after a long paragraph about what Gerry and MO had done when they went - about which she can have no idea at all, obviously.
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors, as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it."

Listen, Kate / Janet  you s****  b****, if two people have visited the apartment and entered the room and checked the children  - - WHY would you expect to find the door at the 'same angle', particularly when you then go on to invent a mini-micro climate (nano-climate ?)  which produced sudden gusts of Force 5 confined to your apartment and to nowhere else along the entire Atlantic Coast capable of slamming the door, even though you were holding onto it, and then whooshing 2.3 m long full length curtains, even through they were tucked firmly down between the unmade bed and the wall,  and behind the wicker chair, and tucked themselves back down behind the bed and the wall, and behind the wicker chair before the photographers came.
You are trying too hard.  And you have failed.
It's an invented scenario imo. I have no doubt in my mind that a third party removed Madeleine (and I'm only propounding a theory - nothing based in fact) and that's what trips up the McCanns account of what happened because what they claim to have happened just doesn't ring true - too many contradictions, too many holes in the story and too much LACK of emotion.

What a rotten bunch of people.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 14.06.14 16:49

@PeterMac wrote:
@Hicks wrote:No you are not wrong, it was Mathew Oldfield, my mistake.
You can see Kate pause for a moment just before she mentions the door, as if she's trying to get the story right in her head before she opens her mouth. The whole story is a lie as poor Madeleine had met her fate well before that time imo.

Quite.
In one short sentence she trashes Gerry's story AND Oldfield's.   She specifically indicates that both are lying.
And even more interestingly - or not - as with so many of the contradictions there has never been an attempt to explain which of the many "versions" is the correct one.

She also includes this nonsense in Exhibit KH 1  after a long paragraph about what Gerry and MO had done when they went - about which she can have no idea at all, obviously.
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors, as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it."

Listen, Kate / Janet  you s****  b****, if two people have visited the apartment and entered the room and checked the children  - - WHY would you expect to find the door at the 'same angle', particularly when you then go on to invent a mini-micro climate (nano-climate ?)  which produced sudden gusts of Force 5 confined to your apartment and to nowhere else along the entire Atlantic Coast capable of slamming the door, even though you were holding onto it, and then whooshing 2.3 m long full length curtains, even through they were tucked firmly down between the unmade bed and the wall,  and behind the wicker chair, and tucked themselves back down behind the bed and the wall, and behind the wicker chair before the photographers came.
You are trying too hard.  And you have failed.

But it's standard procedure in horror films to create an expectation of unnamed horror. The creak of a door which should not be open, a strengthening wind and the !!!!!!!' terror revealed, accompanied by music reaching a crescendo, then the scream...


One of the standard methods to create suspense as taught in all media courses. Talking of media 'experts' ... winkwink 

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by plebgate on 14.06.14 18:11

@PeterMac wrote:
@Hicks wrote:No you are not wrong, it was Mathew Oldfield, my mistake.
You can see Kate pause for a moment just before she mentions the door, as if she's trying to get the story right in her head before she opens her mouth. The whole story is a lie as poor Madeleine had met her fate well before that time imo.

Quite.
In one short sentence she trashes Gerry's story AND Oldfield's.   She specifically indicates that both are lying.
And even more interestingly - or not - as with so many of the contradictions there has never been an attempt to explain which of the many "versions" is the correct one.

She also includes this nonsense in Exhibit KH 1  after a long paragraph about what Gerry and MO had done when they went - about which she can have no idea at all, obviously.
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors, as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it."

Listen, Kate / Janet  you s****  b****, if two people have visited the apartment and entered the room and checked the children  - - WHY would you expect to find the door at the 'same angle', particularly when you then go on to invent a mini-micro climate (nano-climate ?)  which produced sudden gusts of Force 5 confined to your apartment and to nowhere else along the entire Atlantic Coast capable of slamming the door, even though you were holding onto it, and then whooshing 2.3 m long full length curtains, even through they were tucked firmly down between the unmade bed and the wall,  and behind the wicker chair, and tucked themselves back down behind the bed and the wall, and behind the wicker chair before the photographers came.
You are trying too hard.  And you have failed.
Confusion was good apparently, that is until the internet researchers (good on them I say) studied every page, word for word, of everything and anything that has been said or written.

Who would ever have thought those statements would find their way to the internet and be poured over by thousands worldwide?

plebgate

Posts : 5444
Reputation : 1157
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 14.06.14 19:49

@tigger wrote:

But it's standard procedure in horror films to create an expectation of unnamed horror. The creak of a door which should not be open, a strengthening wind and the !!!!!!!'  terror revealed, accompanied by music reaching a crescendo, then the scream...


One of the standard  methods to create suspense as taught in all media courses. Talking of media 'experts' ... winkwink 
***
Tigger, I just went  spit coffee  Sorry, I shouldn't. It's such a sad [ and true] story  sad

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 15.06.14 16:38

From another topic:

Dee coy wrote:

PeterMac wrote:
She did indeed say that.

p. 253
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.

But bizarrely she also said
p.219
Did they really believe that a dog could smell the ‘odour of death’ three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly? They were adding two and two and coming up with ten.

Has she in fact inadvertently told the world the truth.
The book was passed by lawyers and proof readers, but they let this clear ADMISSION Through. Why ?
Unquote

Thanks guys! thumbsup 

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Justformaddie on 16.06.14 10:17

Has there ever been a theory that includes the phone footage with GM saying f@@k off! I'm not here to enjoy myself? The excitement should be big at that stage ( well, I know mine would) so what could this possibly be all about I wonder? Why would he say that at that time?

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 16.06.14 10:22

It could be a (failed) attempt at humour or he was tired after a long journey with fractious children.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Justformaddie on 16.06.14 10:52

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It could be a (failed) attempt at humour or he was tired after a long journey with fractious children.
Hmm....  Although I'm not here to enjoy myself is a big red flag, could he have known something was gonna happen and it wouldn't be fun? That's the bit that I can't get my head around. Accident maybe but no need to conceal the body, I'm actually afraid of what her daddy said on that shuttle bus and then the need to conceal. Tats pretty bad stuff there and as always IMO

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 18.06.14 5:51

Copied from Blacksmith topic:


Re: Blacksmith's latest message
Hobs Today at 1:35 am

If the mentioned telegram does exist, its contents only tell that the British Police developed in September 2007 (we believe that to be the date of the correspondence exchange) information regarding our responsibility in the disappearance of our daughter.

Oh dear, another case of open mouth insert feet.

Here we have them admitting responsibility in the disappearance of Maddie.

Can you spot the missing word??

The missing word is alleged.


If they were innocent then alleged or a similar word would be used to distance themselves from the crime, they would not be taking ownership of the crime.

Instead, we have them them taking ownership of the crime which is unexpected.

They tell us the British Police developed information relating to the mccanns involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.

I love being a statement analyst especially when the mccanns are so giving

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Post by tigger on 28.06.14 6:02

Copied from topic :
Is Clarence Mitchell telling us something new about apt 5a?
worriedmum Yesterday at 11:42 pm

I have brought this clip over from another thread, with thanks to Newintown for bringing it to our attention.

During this Sky interview Clarence Mitchell responds to the opinion proffered by Mark Williams -Thomas that Madeleine could have wandered out of the apartment and have been 'scooped up', as Clarence Mitchell puts it,by an abductor. Mitchell is quick to refute this suggestion, citing the 'open window' and the 'closing of the patio doors' as evidence that Madeleine could not have accomplished these acts, ergo , it must have been an abductor who entered the apartment.


What he says next is very interesting.

...''WOULD SHE HAVE CLOSED THE PATIO DOORS BEHIND HER, LAID OUT TOYS, THAT APPARENTLY ,NO, ONLY CUDDLE CAT WAS THERE AND IT SIMPLY DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY, KATE KNOWS THAT''


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21sfLh8FoL0&list=PLDCF22535653D5158&index=63


from about 3.40

Unquote

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 28.06.14 9:42

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It could be a (failed) attempt at humour or he was tired after a long journey with fractious children.

I do agree with you here NFWTD.

On holiday with three children under 5, out of your normal routine, out of your normal environment. Well I know what it is like on my own with one young child and no, a lot of it is not fun for the parent.  Hell on earth springs to my mind  Shocked 

But on the other hand why was that particular video released? IIRC we still don't know for sure who took it and who released it (DP?) - that makes me wonder if there is something significant in it.  If it was just trying to show an innocent jolly family holiday then why include the clip of the clip of the wee one swearing about it - would not really give the right impression.

Another oddity, in a case full of oddities.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 28.06.14 11:22

The video was released by the McCanns and was taken by David Payne as he is the only person in the group not appearing in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

The infamous remark is faded out in this clip.

I wonder why no later home videos from the holiday have been released to confirm to sceptics that Madeleine was actually alive and well in PDY up until 3rd May.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 28.06.14 11:37

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The video was released by the McCanns and was taken by David Payne as he is the only person in the group not appearing in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

The infamous remark is faded out in this clip.
Thanks for clarifying the provenance of this clip NFWTD.

I still find it a bit odd - if you were at pains to paint yourselves as a normal happy family on a normal happy family holiday why release a video with GM swearing and saying that he was not there to enjoy himself?  Granted some of us may agree with his sentiments as a knowing remark about the challenges of travel/holidays with small children, but why release this particular one and leave room for doubt? Why not release one without the negative comments and swearing?  One that portrays the 'correct' image.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 28.06.14 12:33

The very first time I saw that video clip [back in 2007], it was without the swearing ... I wonder which one was the original. That one, or the one with the swearing. Are there any lip readers around?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 18 of 18 Previous  1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum