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 3 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Aquila

Post by tigger on 04.01.12 16:21

I think the creche records are on a 'sticky' now, if you go to the 'Home' page otherwise just put 'creche enquiry' in the search field. It's quite recent.
The bit Kikorton quoted is from HotlipsHealy ( I compressed a conversation between members but the post are under their names).

This is why it is so useful to got through older material again - it brings up these very useful comments.

____________________
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 aquila on 04.01.12 16:36

@tigger wrote:I think the creche records are on a 'sticky' now, if you go to the 'Home' page otherwise just put 'creche enquiry' in the search field. It's quite recent.
The bit Kikorton quoted is from HotlipsHealy ( I compressed a conversation between members but the post are under their names).

This is why it is so useful to got through older material again - it brings up these very useful comments.



thank you tigger

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 04.01.12 17:06

Hotlipshealy wrote on 15th june 2011:

Maybe 'putting her to sleep' and the fake abduction, and the Fund, was planned. Maybe they knew the only way to put Maddie out of her misery 'legally' was to make it look like an abduction, which is why everything (Fund/website etc) kicked off so early and professionally and Gerry's brother gave up his job so early on.
unquote
HotlipsHealy

Maybe it wasn't Maddie's misery.

____________________
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 kikoraton on 04.01.12 17:25

Maybe the Lobster group was cancelled, tho I wouldn't be sure about that. But the Jellyfish Group certainly did meet - Ma Webster took the twins along.

kikoraton
Researcher

Posts : 617
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-13
Location : Catalunya, Spain

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Badboys on 04.01.12 17:37

@kikoraton wrote:Maybe 'putting her to sleep' and the fake abduction, and the Fund, was planned. Maybe they knew the only way to put Maddie out of her misery 'legally' was to make it look like an abduction, which is why everything (Fund/website etc) kicked off so early and professionally and Gerry's brother gave up his job so early on.
unquote

I agree. If I'm correct (and I'm 99% sure), it was Gerry who signed Elizabeth Naylor into creche from Sunday 29 April. That implies pre-meditation. And ready collaborators. I still need to know, where's the link between the Mccanns and the Naylors? The history of the latter is 2000-2008 Edinburgh, with less-than-transparent stockbrokers Teather and Greenwood, then the Icelandic bank Landsbanki which went down leaving thousands of small savers with nothing. Not a good CV, unless you're an investment banker. Then Naylor and all his colleagues surfaced again in London, with Matrix Group.
I think that the substitute for Maddie, in the creche, was called Mad'lene and came from the same circle of friends as the Naylors.
On twitter, I've laid down a challenge: since on 6 occasions out of 7, Elizabeth Naylor was signed-in under Gerry's handwriting (99% sure) and on only one occasion under her mother's, when "Madeleine McCann" didn't turn up to creche anyway, WHOSE HANDWRITING IS EN'S ATTENDANCE IN, ASSUMING SHE ATTENDED, ON 4 MAY?
Little things like this could blast the case right open, if only some police force took the trouble to investigate them.

Don't forget that he(rn) also runs a firm called real estate opportunities,runs property in ireland and uk etc.

see if you can work out possible connection(there is a nicola naylor,coincidence?),but there might be another connection.
)

Badboys

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 04.01.12 17:51

Badboys - do you have a link by any chance? I`ve looked at the site for real estate opportunities who appear to be a Jersey based company, but I can`t find any mention of a Robert Naylor. There are quite a lot of Robert Naylors around which Kiko and I have discovered during our research.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Badboys on 04.01.12 18:34

@alison wrote:Badboys - do you have a link by any chance? I`ve looked at the site for real estate opportunities who appear to be a Jersey based company, but I can`t find any mention of a Robert Naylor. There are quite a lot of Robert Naylors around which Kiko and I have discovered during our research.

Type in real estate opportunities robert naylor(perhaps jonathan becher,fincham? as well) in google(assuming its your search engine,8th entry down,the people mentioned are also with matrix group(i clicked in quick view? to see it) registered in jersey.

hope it helps.

Badboys

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 04.01.12 19:08

Thanks Badboys!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

interview

Post by Guest on 04.01.12 20:04

I just saw this interview I hadnt seen before, done in 2010..

The last part I found very interresting..

Does anyone know where to find the full interview?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 04.01.12 20:26

When Sandra asked them about sightings at the end and they said they couldn't remember, well you bloody well would remember wouldn't you? What a crock. There was one where there was a DNA test done on a glass, and they couldn't remember that? And he smirked when he recounted Janes egg man, two sighting on the night, forgot to mention that the Smith sighting only came to light because he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. How ridiculous. All these clips of them taking the p... in interviews should be compiled one after the other on a DVD and sent to a body language expert who will do a prof. analysis pro bono, then onto SY!

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 04.01.12 20:33

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:When Sandra asked them about sightings at the end and they said they couldn't remember, well you bloody well would remember wouldn't you? What a crock. There was one where there was a DNA test done on a glass, and they couldn't remember that? And he smirked when he recounted Janes egg man, two sighting on the night, forgot to mention that the Smith sighting only came to light because he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. How ridiculous. All these clips of them taking the p... in interviews should be compiled one after the other on a DVD and sent to a body language expert who will do a prof. analysis pro bono, then onto SY!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 09.01.12 17:09

I edited this as much as I could, I really like this analysis. Dr. M. Roberts, Mccannfiles, 2007.
quote:
Q (Antena 3): October 2007 "Do you still maintain the hope, that is, genuinely believe that Madeleine is still alive?"

KM: "I do, maybe even more so, I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there, errm... I think she's probably in someone's house. .....snipped ... I feel in my heart really that she's there and I don't believe Madeleine's been taken from us permanently. ...snipped

(n.b. I believe = I am uncertain. I strongly believe = I seriously doubt. I don't believe (x) = I am more certain of (y) than (x)).

Superficially, it seems KM is clinging to the hope that Madeleine is 'on loan' somewhere. The underlying logic of her final remark suggests otherwise, as do her various lapses into the past tense when speaking of Madeleine, e.g. the October observation, "I know Madeleine was very happy with her life" .. snipped

We should also look very carefully at the statement, "I don't believe Madeleine has been taken away from us permanently."

It sounds as though KM is referring to a visit from Social Services. Whilst it is tempting to speculate about a subliminal anxiety, that would perhaps be straying too far afield. The sentence structure is subtle and complex even so; altogether more elaborate than necessary ('I don't believe Madeleine will be missing forever' would have sufficed).

Once more, bearing in mind a universal propensity to avoid telling lies on camera, it is noticeable how KM steers clear of the ambivalent constructs 'taken'/'taken from us' (references, in common parlance, to someone's passing away) by expedient insertion of the preposition 'away', implying abduction. Her intention is to suggest that Madeleine's absence is a temporary state of affairs, 'permanently' being a part of what KM does not believe. However, the phrase 'from us' presents an obtrusive and, one might contend, altogether superfluous extension to her argument, as the protagonists in this drama have been identified long since.
snip
Let us consider theft for a moment. When describing something we've lost to a thief we might say, 'it was stolen'. If more detail were required we might add 'from my car' (house, handbag etc.) none of which necessarily implies that we were present at the time. The statement 'it was stolen from me', on the other hand, immediately makes us a party to the act.

It is something of a puzzle as to how, given our instinctual avoidance of telling lies, GM was able to make his unforgettable homecoming statement on the airport runway without showing any obvious sign of discomfort ('...except to say that we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine.'). Although he substituted 'disappearance' for 'abduction', the opening disclaimer, 'we played no part in', remains troublesome. If this was not lying, might that have been because GM privately and deliberately misconstrued 'no part' as 'no active part', thereby dismissing any connection with the contributory negligence of child abandonment? Or was he being absolutely truthful? There may be sufficient evidence to confirm that Madeleine was not the victim of a 'stranger abduction', but how do we know someone else did not make her 'disappear'? We do not. And if the McCanns were not directly responsible for any injury to the child in the first instance, then GM's statement is entirely valid and entirely truthful into the bargain.

What this brings us to, I believe, is the very real possibility that the McCanns had help in squaring the situation, and that KM's statement ("I don't believe Madeleine has been taken away from us permanently.") is alluding, literally, to a handover.

Tacit confirmation of Madeleine's demise comes from both parties at around 25th May, barely three weeks after Madeleine's reported disappearance, when interviewed for ITV.

Q: "What do you think happened to her?"

GM: "All I can say is that, you know, the information is that she's been abducted. We don't know who's done it and it doesn't help... speculation really doesn't help us. We know that she's gone, we do not believe that, err... she's dead. I truly believe that she's alive and we will not give up looking for her."

This brief episode is richly informative. The opening remark is a classic. GM is only prepared to reveal what he can say. There is without doubt something that he cannot. The information (only - not the actuality necessarily) is that she's been abducted. In the next sentence we need to appreciate that the second instance of the pronoun 'it' does not represent the noun 'speculation', which follows an interruption. If it did, GM would simply have continued with 'to speculate'. There is clearly something else to be added to the phrase 'it doesn't help'; something which GM deliberately cuts off. The mere insertion of the word 'anyway', for example, would have put a completely different complexion on things.

There is an interruption in the next sentence also. Whatever it was that GM was prepared to announce as something they did not believe, it was not that Madeleine was dead. There is a conspicuous pause for thought, with the result that 'she's dead' becomes dissociated as a stand-alone remark.

Adopting the argument that belief equals uncertainty, GM first declares the child dead, the phrase 'she's dead' being divorced from the antecedent 'We do not believe that', then reaffirms this statement by saying he 'truly believes (he strongly doubts) she's alive.'

Q: "And you've said that you won't go home either but at some point you may have to go home. Whe... At what point do you decide: 'Our lives must continue, we've got two other children, we have to get on?"

KM: "I mean, at this... at this moment in time I cannot think about going home without Madeleine, errr... and we certainly have no plans at all to go home with Madeleine... without Madeleine."

This last, telling remark, is complete in itself. 'Without Madeleine' is a corrective addendum.

Madeleine's death would of course imply that the 'abduction' is a charade, just as GM tells us when he says, "everyone is acting, some in big ways." Superficially it seems as if GM is expressing gratitude for the magnanimity of the general public, but to suppose that everyone refers to the entire population of planet earth would be presumptuous in the extreme. Everyone ought also to 'take action' if they genuinely mean to help. GM is clearly not referring to the world as a whole, but to a discrete group of actors, some with bigger parts to play than others.
unquote
25th May, no plans to go home with Madeleine - not yet buried? Still in someones' house/cellar?

____________________
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 tigger on 11.01.12 9:53

@kikoraton wrote:Maybe the Lobster group was cancelled, tho I wouldn't be sure about that. But the Jellyfish Group certainly did meet - Ma Webster took the twins along.

I missed this point earlier. It's probably too late to find the creche records for the week following 3/5. Or the week preceding that, that is imo a sure fire way to note irregularities. I'm sure Stella and you are right on the creche records.
The whole deception hangs together like links in a chain, the counter argument is that there are simply too many people involved for a deception to have worked. Imo it's really simple: you do a favour for a friend who will otherwise get into trouble, like having him sign in your child. There is always some payback or perhaps you owe him. That's how the criminal underworld works, very efficiently. Once you're in, there's no way you getting out of jail free. Find out you've been part of a much larger scheme, you simply know nothing and praise the guy who's dropped you in it to the skies. Perhaps at a later stage, you can now ask a favour of him.

____________________
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 Gillyspot on 11.01.12 11:04

@tigger wrote:Madeleine's death would of course imply that the 'abduction' is a charade, just as GM tells us when he says, "everyone is acting, some in big ways." [/b]

Where does that quote come from? "Everyone is acting, some in big ways" seems like someone is being deceptive in their actions (i.e. acting) from that phrase.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 11.01.12 12:55

@Gillyspot wrote:
@tigger wrote:Madeleine's death would of course imply that the 'abduction' is a charade, just as GM tells us when he says, "everyone is acting, some in big ways." [/b]

quote from Mccannfiles, dr. Roberts, 2007.

Where does that quote come from? "Everyone is acting, some in big ways" seems like someone is being deceptive in their actions (i.e. acting) from that phrase.

The likelihood of Madeleine having been abducted is vanishingly small when assessed in terms of mathematical probability, and we must therefore consider an alternative fate. A lengthy statement by GM to ITV on 25th May, 2007 opens the door somewhat.

GM: "We truly believe that a member of the public holds the information to unlock where Madeleine is being kept. They either will have seen something, that will lead to the abductor being traced, or they will notice suspicious behaviour from someone, and we truly believe that and I think, you know, we cannot have imagined how successful our campaign to keep the publicity going, regarding her disappearance, has been, but it's because people have seen that and with information technology, the world is so much smaller, we believe that there truly is a feeling here that the people will not allow this to happen and they want Madeleine to be found and everyone is acting, some in big ways; every small piece of action here helps the search."

From the Dr. M. Roberts' interviews analyses, 2007, Mccannfiles. I always put the reference above the quote rather than below.

____________________
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 tigger on 11.01.12 13:03

I've been mulling over this phrase and would appreciate any way that could be finished in a logical way. Rest of the quote is above. Bear in mind that this interview was on the 25th May 2007

quoteKM: "I mean, at this... at this moment in time I cannot think about going home without Madeleine, errr... and we certainly have no plans at all to go home with Madeleine... without Madeleine."

This last, telling remark, is complete in itself. 'Without Madeleine' is a corrective addendum.unquote (dr. M. Roberts, Mccannfiles.)

no plans to go home with Madeleine -
not yet buried?
not yet found? (this would be nonsense, since they themselves said that she'd been taken over the Spanish border. Mmmm, were they telling the truth? Huelva?
not ......


____________________
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 tigger on 11.01.12 15:22

This is John McCann having a go: the audio clip can be heard on: http://mccannfundfraud.info/2008/12/the-car-hired-5-weeks-after-madeleines-disappearance/
Quote; (snipped here and there - see link above for full text )
DECEMBER 10TH, 2008 (reference about Mccannfundfraud.)

When the DNA evidence was first brought to light, John McCann appeared on Sky Television in an interview.

Interestingly, and never challenged at the time, John went into elaborate detail about the car hired by brother Gerry and said;

“…but some of the, some of the stuff that’s being speculated on just isn’t plausible. Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense.

Did John make an amazing Freudian Slip? Why did John mention “5 weeks” when he was talking in September 2007 – months after Madeleine had disappeared?

The facts are that the car had been hired on May 27 – 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. 24 days is a significantly shorter time than 5 weeks.

So, what could be significant about something happening 5 weeks after Madeleine’s demise?

5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared was the weekend commencing Friday June 8, 2007. When we look closely at that weekend, there are several interesting things to note:

The McCann family flew in to the Algarve or were already there for that weekend. Susan and Brian Healy – Kate’s parents – were there. Trish and Sandy Cameron – Gerry’s sister and his brother in-law were there. Philomena flew in to Lisbon and Kate’s long time friend Anne-Marie Wright and her husband Michael had flown in to Faro.

Michael told the police that he and his wife flew in with the specific job of looking after Sean and Amelie while Kate and Gerry went to Morocco on Sunday June 10. Given the large number of close family relatives in town, Michael’s statement to the police is flawed.

On Saturday June 9, 2007, the entire family is supposed to have spent a day at the southwestern tip of Portugal – a town called Sagres.

Was Madeleine disposed of during the weekend of June 8? Did John McCann inadvertently let it slip that this was the weekend when Madeleine was finally laid to rest or disposed of?

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 rainbow-fairy on 11.01.12 16:14

tigger, there is one logical end to the phrase Kate McCann mentioned. If she added the words 'still missing' to the end. However, this would ONLY work if the subject were being 100% truthful.
Here is where we hit a problem. As you well know, one of the basic premises of FL is that the brain will wherever possible leak the truth. If we look at Kate's statement again, we can see that there is no problem to start. If Kate truly didn't know where Madeleine was OR knew EXACTLY where she was, she could still speak the words truthfully - at the beginning.
"I mean, at this... at this moment in time I cannot think about going home without Madeleine,err... R-F:This would be a true statement whether Kate knew Madeleine's whereabouts or not; put simply, they weren't thinking of leaving without her (live or body) ...and we certainly have no plans at all to go home with Madeleine (still missing)R-F:- Simply put, had Madeleine truly been abducted with whereabouts unknown, 'still missing' would be the only sensible ending to this sentence. So we have to ask ourselves, Why did Kate not say this? Why did she add the correction 'without Madeleine'? It was pointless as she had in the very sentence before said the exact same thing!
This is a classic case of the brain trying to force out the truth. The fact that Kate was so resistant to saying the words 'With Madeleine still missing' STRONGLY suggests that she knew this was not the case. Even more simply put, she is lying and Madeleines whereabouts were 100% known to her. Of this I have very little doubt.
People who do not understand FL often think that choice of words is irrelevant. They are very relevant. The brain has already chosen and lined up the words it needs to speak the truth quite unconsciously. Its when these words leak out that we get the corrective phrases. The truth does not need correction. This is why it is such an important tool in picking up deceptions.

It may well be, tigger, that what Kate was thinking was along the lines of 'with Madeleine - not yet buried' or 'with Madeleine - not yet moved to her final place'.
It is certain, however that the above phrase is , without a shadow of a doubt, 100% deceptive.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 11.01.12 16:33

This is from Sky News, july 2007. snipped here and there
The parents of Madeleine McCann have told Sky News they will stay in Portugal until they find their missing daughter.

Brian is chairman of Madeleine's Fund, now in itself a full-time job. So far it has raised more than £900,000. 76 days into the project!

Responding to criticism that the McCanns would not have had so much help if they weren't doctors, he said: "It's true we have friends we could call on that others may not have - [b]and we used them, we called in favours. Favours! John McCann said something similar.

"Our view is that any parent wherever they are, whatever they do, should get the same publicity as Madeleine has and if we can do anything through the fund for others then we will." We're still waiting to see the Fund spend a penny on other truly lost children. 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 kikoraton on 11.01.12 18:48

"Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense."

I like to bear in mind that the released PJ files do not show who had the Renault between (IIRC) 12 April and 8 May. There's an unexplained gap there.

How about "we certainly don't intend to go home with Madeleine still capable of raking in so much money for us."

kikoraton
Researcher

Posts : 617
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-13
Location : Catalunya, Spain

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by monkey mind on 11.01.12 20:12

......still in that freezer”

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by aiyoyo on 12.01.12 14:42

@tigger wrote:This is John McCann having a go: the audio clip can be heard on: http://mccannfundfraud.info/2008/12/the-car-hired-5-weeks-after-madeleines-disappearance/
Quote; (snipped here and there - see link above for full text )
DECEMBER 10TH, 2008 (reference about Mccannfundfraud.)

When the DNA evidence was first brought to light, John McCann appeared on Sky Television in an interview.

Interestingly, and never challenged at the time, John went into elaborate detail about the car hired by brother Gerry and said;

“…but some of the, some of the stuff that’s being speculated on just isn’t plausible. Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense.

Did John make an amazing Freudian Slip? Why did John mention “5 weeks” when he was talking in September 2007 – months after Madeleine had disappeared?

The facts are that the car had been hired on May 27 – 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. 24 days is a significantly shorter time than 5 weeks.

So, what could be significant about something happening 5 weeks after Madeleine’s demise?

5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared was the weekend commencing Friday June 8, 2007. When we look closely at that weekend, there are several interesting things to note:

The McCann family flew in to the Algarve or were already there for that weekend. Susan and Brian Healy – Kate’s parents – were there. Trish and Sandy Cameron – Gerry’s sister and his brother in-law were there. Philomena flew in to Lisbon and Kate’s long time friend Anne-Marie Wright and her husband Michael had flown in to Faro.

So it might be quite reasonable to posit these questions:
Was the congregation of both sides family to brainstorm Maddie's final resting place?
Why did Philomena fly to Libson when the rest were in PDL?
Why did kate's best mate Anne Marie Wright and spouse fly to Faro instead?
Were they there to influence friends to help? Or were they spread out so as to distract Police surveillance of the mccanns?

The 5-week remark is indeed intriguing!


Michael told the police that he and his wife flew in with the specific job of looking after Sean and Amelie while Kate and Gerry went to Morocco on Sunday June 10. Given the large number of close family relatives in town, Michael’s statement to the police is flawed.

On Saturday June 9, 2007, the entire family is supposed to have spent a day at the southwestern tip of Portugal – a town called Sagres.

Was Madeleine disposed of during the weekend of June 8? Did John McCann inadvertently let it slip that this was the weekend when Madeleine was finally laid to rest or disposed of?

Unquote


aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 14.01.12 14:17

From the rogatory interview with David Payne re the missing tennis bag.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.” unquote

Nothing you could HIDE a tennis racket in....













____________________
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 rainbow-fairy on 14.01.12 17:48

@tigger wrote:From the rogatory interview with David Payne re the missing tennis bag.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.” unquote

Nothing you could HIDE a tennis racket in....












tigger, thank you so much for posting this one up Wink I've always thought that this statement is the most unbelievable thing I've ever read, and points so blatantly towards concealment. How ANYONE can read this and BELIEVE they are telling the truth is beyond you.
Mind you, not for want of trying - boy oh boy was Fiona Payne's brain desperately trying to tell the truth here! For goodness sake, you don't hide a pencil in a pencil case, you don't hide a match in a matchbox and you sure as heck don't HIDE A TENNIS RAQUET IN A TENNIS BAG - you PUT it in there. Not a turn of phrase, not a mistake, just the pesky old truth leaking...
Says it all IMO

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 14.01.12 19:17

I also think that the 'there was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racket etc...

the a, a is hugely significant imo because he is casting round for a word that is not 'body' or 'child'!

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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