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 4 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

so very very interesting

Post by russiandoll on 14.01.12 19:36

DP could try I guess to argue that as a bright man he heard this strange question about a bag...wondered about the relevance and quickly concluded what route the questioning might well be going down....that was why that "hiding "word was in his brain. I for one do not buy it.
If a bag means nothing else to you but a receptacle for a bit of sports gear or a drink, why on earth would that word " hiding" be anywhere in your head......and so close to the surface that it comes out as and when it does. I would have expected a straightforward response, from a person with nothing to HIDE ,to finish where highlighted in blue.
There was not a follow up q from police at that point, just an acknowledgement of what DP had said. And why bring up the size of said bag? He was only asked about a kit bag, which come in various sizes, gym gear, running gear, sports gear; surely the police did not think Gerry was carrying around the gear Andy Murray would. How did a kit bag become a great big tennis bag? again, look at what is in red... look at how he first maximises the size of the bag, then minimizes it. Only big enough for water !! and all he was asked about was a kit bag. Not big enough to hide a tennis racquet in..... he gets into a right tizz with that entire answer. If there was a bag at all.....did he never see them at the tennis courts then ?
Nah, he is saying way, way too much here.
I am off now to hide my dinner in the oven.

[quote="rainbow-fairy"][quote="tigger"]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....

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Yes Tigger. etc etc....

Post by russiandoll on 14.01.12 20:16

@tigger wrote: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'!


I agree .

Maybe nothing wrong with that "etc" bit, but I found it very strange and therefore significant, that he said "could hide a tennis racquet OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. "

What is he referring to here? Something else that could be in the bag clearly, because he would have stopped at tennis racquet,had he used the word "put" rather than "hide". Also he could be thinking of another activity to do with the bag......."hide, or anything like that ".

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 14.01.12 20:56

Thanks Rainbow Fairy and Russian Doll for getting even more out of this. Amazing isn't it. Hope you found your dinner hiding in the oven!

____________________
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 14.01.12 21:07

And what sort of detective is 1485 to let Payne get away with this obvious calamity????
Payne is an idiot, with a mouth several sizes too large. See also his comments about how mouth-wateringly gorgeous Madeleine was. Yuck!

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 aquila on 14.01.12 21:16

@kikoraton wrote:And what sort of detective is 1485 to let Payne get away with this obvious calamity????
Payne is an idiot, with a mouth several sizes too large. See also his comments about how mouth-wateringly gorgeous Madeleine was. Yuck!

Payne managed to evade answering a few things and I thought it was odd that 1485 didn't press him. I found DP's statement the most disturbing followed by his wife and Dianne Webster's.

Tick me off if I'm straying from the topic but if I had a printer I'd print off the statements, highlight the specific questions asked to all of the T7, put their answers side by side and post the results.

aquila

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Nina on 14.01.12 21:29

@kikoraton wrote:And what sort of detective is 1485 to let Payne get away with this obvious calamity????
Payne is an idiot, with a mouth several sizes too large. See also his comments about how mouth-wateringly gorgeous Madeleine was. Yuck!

Hi Kikoraton. Yes, if you were to read this without knowing who he was referring to you wouldn't imagine he was speaking of a little girl would you?

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 14.01.12 22:29

I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by uppatoffee on 14.01.12 22:47

Jean wrote:I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Quite agree Jean. 'Pleasing her' is such an odd turn of phrase to use in a totally innocent context. There are so many more natural sounding expressions you could use ie 'happy to see her excitement at...' unless of course that does not correctly convey they sentiment you are after Kate.

uppatoffee

Posts : 626
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 15.01.12 8:20

@uppatoffee wrote:
Jean wrote:I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Quite agree Jean. 'Pleasing her' is such an odd turn of phrase to use in a totally innocent context. There are so many more natural sounding expressions you could use ie 'happy to see her excitement at...' unless of course that does not correctly convey they sentiment you are after Kate.

On a long post on MM re JonBenet Ramsey, a now 37 yr old woman has given evidence of widespread paedophilia of which she was a victim.
The children were taught to say to the 'guests': 'It pleases me to please you'. bad

____________________
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 15.01.12 11:44

@tigger wrote:
@uppatoffee wrote:
Jean wrote:I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Quite agree Jean. 'Pleasing her' is such an odd turn of phrase to use in a totally innocent context. There are so many more natural sounding expressions you could use ie 'happy to see her excitement at...' unless of course that does not correctly convey they sentiment you are after Kate.

On a long post on MM re JonBenet Ramsey, a now 37 yr old woman has given evidence of widespread paedophilia of which she was a victim.
The children were taught to say to the 'guests': 'It pleases me to please you'.
Jean, uppatoffee, tigger,
The indications are all there, and there are so many of them - reminds me of that saying 'If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....'
Poor Madeleine Sad

____________________
"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 Guest on 16.01.12 17:22

Not seen this interview before from spanish tv. Mccanns were asked about the reconstruction.

Concha García Campoy: I'd like to ask you two or three questions about doubts in the investigation; I understand that this is a bit painful. It is said that you have not collaborated in a reconstruction of the facts, neither your friends.

Gerry McCann: Especially some of our friends, and how we had been treated, they did not feel that the proposed reconstruction, errr... would have any way gone to helping find Madeleine. No one wanted to do anything [unclear] among our friends [unclear]. To do anything it would have been a complete media circus.

Kate McCann: We also asked about the possibility of actors being used, which is obviously what we do in our reconstructions. I mean, certainly in the UK we have a programme called Crimewatch, which uses actors and I think [unclear]. Errm... it's probably detrimental to ask people who have been through something traumatic to live it again.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id322.html

what planet is this woman on. I'm sure police investigations the length and breadth of the land give Equity a quick call to recruit some actors and give the bbc a call every time they want to do a reconstruction.

Also it probably can be detrimental to some people to have to reconstruct - particularly if it means it disproves your story...very detrimental..

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 16.01.12 17:52

Quite so Stewie, they do use actors, but generally only for the person who's died or disappeared. In order to be useful, you damn well have to have all the original 'players' going through the actions they said they were going through. What on earth can you learn from it otherwise?
Crimewatch may from time to time, re-enact crimes, but that's for the viewers, it isn't a reconstruction of the crime because none of the witnesses are present.
So the only stand-in for the reconstruction in PdL would have had to be a toddler of about the right size and weight.

Mind you, I'd love to have seen a reconstruction with the Tapas, it would have been like a Keystone Cops routine. All over the place. Mr big grin Mrs or Benny Hill, I can hear the music even now!

____________________
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 Miraflores on 16.01.12 19:48

And far from using actors - don't the police use other police officers of similar build and height to the victim?

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 16.01.12 20:07

@Miraflores wrote:And far from using actors - don't the police use other police officers of similar build and height to the victim?

Of course, that what I should have said. They also select one of similar height and build of the victim.

____________________
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 russiandoll on 18.01.12 18:39

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very
striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call
her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very
unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair
err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very
bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact
with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine
err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride
and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and
everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously
very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect
err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she
was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on
the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily
and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is
a very beautiful child and good fun.



imo the reply should have read something along the following lines for it not to have raised a gigantic red flag: the errs and you knows alone are remarkable for their number even allowing for the stress of the situation. A person might not be present, around, might not have been for some time...but not to use the present tense in these circumstances is bizarre in the extreme. If you are speaking about a relation who lives on the other side of the world whom you have not seen for 20 years.....you discuss him in the present tense, only using the past tense if referring to his/ her past.


Dr

David Payne reply: Madeleine’s a striking child, unique looking due to
her iris defect, blonde hair in a bob, quite petite. She
is very bright, Kate and Gerry’s pride and joy, a happy go lucky child, she plays very happily with Lily and the other children.

note the rapid switch from 1 verb in the present to the majority in
the past tense then a sudden reversion back to the present to end his
reply. [highlighted].
Could someone kindly refresh my memory as to
how long after the disappearance this reply came? Payne at this stage
seems to have little doubt she existed in the past and is no longer with
us.




Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err
beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her
doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique
looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a
bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly,
very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She
was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you
know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy.
They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything
and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique
with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you
know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she
would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the
other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and
you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a
very beautiful child and good fun.”


____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 18.01.12 18:53

I rather thought it was the rogatory interview, all of them are well worth reading. Not for information but amusement. You know. Well, I expect, you know. errm, You know - these errrm interviews, were, were, errrm, I think, you know, around April 2008.

____________________
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 Praia on 18.01.12 19:38

Tigger the RI are VERY useful. We can see what statement's they change from the May 07 ones. It shows collusion and what "story" they had decided to stick too, to many to mention but eg in May DW saw nobody when she and the Payne's went to dinner, nobody came looking for them. Oops, MO went to hurry them along and listen at the window of 5A. The check's never happened but they obviously had to cover MO absence from the table at nine o clock.
Where they change their answer's from May 07 means their answer's covered an important part of the story.
The PJ prepared the QUESTION'S carefully so we need to look at the possible reasoning behind them.

Praia

Posts : 392
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 18.01.12 20:33

[quote="Praia"]Tigger the RI are VERY useful. We can see what statement's they change from the May 07 ones. It shows collusion and what "story" they had decided to stick too, to many to mention but eg in May DW saw nobody when she and the Payne's went to dinner, nobody came looking for them. Oops, MO went to hurry them along and listen at the window of 5A. The check's never happened but they obviously had to cover MO absence from the table at nine o clock.
Where they change their answer's from May 07 means their answer's covered an important part of the story.
The PJ prepared the QUESTION'S carefully so we need to look at the possible reasoning behind them.[/quote

You're right of course, what was most amusing about the T7 were the three timelines, the two hammered out on the 3rd evidently didn't work, so I think DP cobbled one together which ran to three typewritten sheets which he copied out for each of the T7. They were surprised when the PJ didn't let them use this crib sheet at the 7/5 interviews. All along the PJ didn't play the role they'd hoped, the sardine munching drunks. Tut, tut.
It actually infuriates me every time I think of it, superior Doctors, chavs the lot of them! None of them would be out of place in Eastenders.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Evenin 'all.

Post by Advocatus on 19.01.12 6:15

Great thread tigger!




"tigger" With kind permission from the poster on MM I'm copying this here. It is just one example of many where the McCanns seemingly let the truth shine through. Sticking to a lie is very hard to do, the brain often refuses to cooperate.

Below is relevant to the Vanity Fair interview - in 2007 I believe.


Re: 'Disposing of a child's body' Gerry McCann

Wintabells wrote:
“But I can’t talk to you about the details of what happened. I live under threat from the Portuguese—if I do talk—of two years’ imprisonment.” He smiles grimly. “It seems to be the same sentence as disposing of a child’s body.”


Sorry to bang on about this, but I think he slipped up here.

Gerry may as well be saying 'Look. Two years in prison, is what I'm trying to avoid - so telling you anything about the case is going to result in me going to prison for breaking judicial secrecy - so at that rate, I may as well tell you the truth about the part I played'.


Agreed! But they DID get around all the Judicial Secrecy by having Clarrie and the whole CLAN talk to the controlled and docile media on their behalf! As we all know. And Portugal did NOTHING ABOUT IT! I'm sorry to say but Portugal is riddled with masons too, and I have some photographic proof of cops within the PJ doing the old masonic funny handshake fandango. Recent photos, which you will probably all have seen. But onwards.



And I believe he knew he'd made a slip up. 'It seems' sounds like an attempt to water down what would have been the original thought in his head ... 'It's the same sentence as disposing of a child's body'. And the expression, 'smiles grimly' is doubtless inaccurate. How does one smile grimly?



Very good point. But Gerry manages it, see below!!! LOL, Gerry does it all the time. His face is like plasticine, play dough, he is clearly showing all the signs of a psychopath (hey, only a psychopath would make the following comment:

In 2007, Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied:

“It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.)


Due to this 'condition', psychopaths can't seem to hide anything. Inwardly
(possibly/allegedly) he wants to scream, I think, YIPPEE! We've got away with it! ("Although we miss Maddie, we understand nothing lasts forever." - "They've got nothing on us!" - "Ask the dogs Sandra.")

Outwardly
(possibly/allegedly)he knows he must remain a mask. Here's one bizarre photo, smiling grimly, or at least not knowing what to do. Psychopaths are never quite sure, so they copy what they others are doing, or what normal people WOULD do in the same situation, and invariably they get it wrong:



Here's another, smiling grimly...:



And another, half-way:



And another, half-way:



And another!!! (half way, not quite sure what to do...this one is almost a secret kiss to Leveson )







Sorry, just a little levity there! with the last one



have we ever seen Gerry smile grimly? No.



I think sort of, see above. Well, he's afraid to be photographed smiling at all. So what comes out is anyone's guess. He is faking everything, apart from his lapses (some of which *may* be cunningly faked too), which is what this excellent thread is all about!



He smiled at the irony of his situation. He's looking at 2 years for breaking judicial secrecy (ie. revealing the pack of lies he's told the police to the Vanity Fair interviewer)


Trouble is, Portugal seems to be manyana-land, nobody seems to want to crack the whip, so contempt of court for the McCanns is something of a joke. Anything they want said, gets said, by the clan, mysterious 'advisors', Clarence etc etc etc. No comebacks.




...and he's looking at 2 years for revealing the truth.

In his interview with Ian Woods Gerry's makes a similar kind of comment https://onmyfrontporch.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/sky-news-interview-25-5-07-ian-woods-speaks-to-mccanns/

GMcC: If we did we wouldn’t tell you [laughs]

This moment in his Vanity Fair inteview, as far as I'm concerned, is the most revealing moment of them all. The unconscious mind cannot be supressed. My theory goes like this: Whatever happened to change Madeleine from a living child to a 'body' was not his doing. Disposal, however, was.
unquote

Great! Wintabells, I hadn't come across that one yet, or missed it. On a par with 'there's no evidence to implicate us in Madeleine's death' .
But I agree 100% with your analysis, forensic linguistics, in fact, why should that information be hanging around in his brain?
It was hanging around in his brain because (possibly/allegedly) some corrupt officer from either CEOP or the LP gave him all the CEOP manuals! Gerry was BONING UP on all kinds of normally totally off-limits Police stuff.

See here: http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2011/10/leicestershire-most-incredible.html

"Evenin' all.

Yes the manuals, courtesy of whom I wonder, a corrupt
(possibly/allegedly) CEOP or the corrupt (possibly/allegedly) Leicester plod? Takes your pick.

As you say, apart from not wanting to be in the same room as the wee XXX, I don't think I would trust myself to be so.

Regarding
your two choices of thought, it has to be the former because quite
frankly he's had enough XXX' rope to rig the Cuttty Sark and still
have enough left over for a bondage session.

We must never even think of considering that the wee man and the position he finds himself in today is by one of chance.

The
position he finds himself in is due to one thing only, corruption
(possibly/allegedly). I
don't know how high up it starts, nor do I know at what level it
finishes, but what I do know is Leicester plod
(possibly/allegedly)is smack bang in the
middle of it.

I get tired of drawing the same conclusion, LP are
either so XXX stupid that they can't see what's going on, or
they're so XXX
(possibly/allegedly)bent they don't want to see what's going on.

It's why, unless some private enterprise nails them with irrefutable evidence, that I think they will get away with it.

Can
you imagine what the LP and this case would look like to an outside
police force? stroll on! they'd take one look at Leicester plod and say,
are you so XXX stupid that you can't see what's going on, or are
you so XXX
(possibly/allegedly)bent you don't want to see what's going on.

But that, judging by what has come to pass so far, ain't going to happen.

Drive
on McCanns, no matter that you've XXX XXXXXXXXXXX, taken the XXX out of everything and everybody, Leicester XXX plod will continue to ignore what must be apparent to five year
old, just as they will continue to sit on their fat
(possibly/allegedly)corrupt XXX XXX and carry on in the manner that which they have become accustomed,
the one they have so clearly demonstrated, past and present."


It wasn't relevant to an abducted girl which should have been foremost in his mind. No, it was a big slip-up.

tigger



Ahh yes, the camera does not lie. Or the microphone.
(possibly/allegedly)


____________________
"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Gerry McCann: Police CATS (Case Administration and Tracking System) Number 19309 - NB: The 19309 number is still on the Police database, but all data within the file appears to have been ERASED...

Advocatus

Posts : 340
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 19.01.12 9:56

Great control there Advocatus, it really is much appreciated.

As for other Police forces, the PJ are no different to the Boulder Police, where JonBenet Ramsey is concerned. Steve Thomas and his team wanted to nail them, but was prevented. Goncalo Amaral and his team wanted to nail the T9, but they were also prevented. It's what goes on in the upper echelons, is where the rot sits.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

that student loan remark

Post by russiandoll on 19.01.12 14:18

To be fair to Gerry [ yes, it is difficult] but more importantly to be accurate when quoting, his remark did not compare his reaction to discovering his child had vanished to the feeling he would have if he found out he was overdrawn at the bank

here is your quote advocatus :

In 2007, Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied:

“It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.)


and here is the interview with Ian Woods from Sky News :
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.
Please take care when attributing words to the couple that were not said, it makes this forum look silly and gives ammunition to those who criticise our debates.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Advocatus on 19.01.12 16:27

@russiandoll wrote:To be fair to Gerry [ yes, it is difficult] but more importantly to be accurate when quoting, his remark did not compare his reaction to discovering his child had vanished to the feeling he would have if he found out he was overdrawn at the bank

here is your quote advocatus :
In 2007, Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied:

“It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.)

and here is the interview with Ian Woods from Sky News :
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.
Please take care when attributing words to the couple that were not said, it makes this forum look silly and gives ammunition to those who criticise our debates.


Hi,

I agree it is very important to be accurate, see my sig line! lol4

I'm a afraid I got the quote from the MF 163 questions booklet and the MF 50 questions booklet...

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id363.html

q86

[color:f6ef=000000]In
2007, Dr Gerald
McCann was asked to
comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied: “It was like
being told you were
overdrawn on your student loan”. In what ways is the abduction of your
child comparable with finding
yourself overdrawn on a
student loan?

q40

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-madeleine-foundations-50-facts-leaflet/

39.
On 24 August 2007, Gerry McCann, in a Scottish TV interview, said: “In
fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so
much rumour about what did and didn’t happen, it’s actually very
difficult, if you’re reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what
is true and what’s not”.


40.
Asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been
abducted, Dr Gerald McCann said: “It was like being told you were
overdrawn on your student loan”.


41.
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said in September 2007:
“There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may
or may not have found”

lol4 Now looks like sig line may be annacurate too!lol4
[color:f6ef=000000]


____________________
"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Gerry McCann: Police CATS (Case Administration and Tracking System) Number 19309 - NB: The 19309 number is still on the Police database, but all data within the file appears to have been ERASED...

Advocatus

Posts : 340
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Advocatus on 19.01.12 16:37

Stella wrote:Great control there Advocatus, it really is much appreciated.

As for other Police forces, the PJ are no different to the Boulder Police, where JonBenet Ramsey is concerned. Steve Thomas and his team wanted to nail them, but was prevented. Goncalo Amaral and his team wanted to nail the T9, but they were also prevented. It's what goes on in the upper echelons, is where the rot sits.

I had to brace myself, count to 100, and have a very stiff drink before using all those XXXs~~~!!!


AS an aside I recently read the lead Detective's resignation letter, he hit all the road blocks that Goncala seems to have too, as you say it was all totally corrupt at the upper levels:

http://www.forstevethomas.com/resignation.htm

in case it gets WHOOSHED here it is:

August 6, 1998

Chief Beckner,


On June 22, I submitted a letter to Chief Koby, requesting a leave of
absence from the Boulder Police Department. In response to persistent
speculation as to why I chose to leave the Ramsey investigation, this
letter explains more fully those reasons. Although my concerns were well
known for some time, I tried to be gracious in my departure, addressing
only health concerns. However, after a month of soul searching and
reflection, I feel I must now set the record straight.

The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the district
attorney's office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case. I had been
troubled for many months with many aspects of the investigation. Albeit
an uphill battle of a case to begin with, it became a nearly impossible
investigation because of the political alliances, philosophical
differences, and professional egos that blocked progress in more ways,
and on more occasions, than I can detail in this memorandum. I and
others voiced these concerns repeatedly. In the interest of hoping
justice would be served, we tolerated it, except for those closed door
sessions when detectives protested in frustration, where fists hit the
table, where detectives demanded that the right things be done. The
wrong things were done, and made it a manner of simple principle that I
could not continue to participate as it stood with the district
attorney's office. As an organization, we remained silent, when we
should have shouted.

The Boulder Police Department took a handful of detectives days after
the murder, and handed us this case. As one of those five primary
detectives, we tackled it for a year and a half. We conducted an
exhaustive investigation, followed the evidence where it led us, and
were faithfully and professionally committed to this case. Although not
perfect, cases rarely are. During eighteen months on the Ramsey
investigation, my colleagues and I worked the case night and day, and in
spite of tied hands. On June 1-2, 1998, we crunched thirty thousand
pages of investigation to its essence, and put our cards on the
table, delivering the case in a formal presentation to the district
attorney's office. We stood confident in our work. Very shortly
thereafter, though, the detectives who know this case better than anyone
were advised by the district attorney's office that we would not be
participating as grand jury advisory witnesses.

The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file to see
justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded
true prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of
resources. All legal opportunities were not made available. How were we
expected to "solve" this case when the district attorney's office was
crippling us with their positions? I believe they were, literally,
facilitating the escape of justice. During this investigation, consider
the following:

During the investigation detectives would discover, collect, and bring
evidence to the district attorney's office, only to have it summarily
dismissed or rationalized as insignificant. The most elementary of
investigative efforts, such as obtaining telephone and credit card
records, were met without support, search warrants denied. The
significant opinions of nationalexperts were casually dismissed or
ignored by the district attorney's office, even the experienced FBI were
waved aside.

Those who chose not to cooperate were never compelled before a grand
jury early in this case, as detectives suggested only weeks after the
murder, while information and memories were fresh.

An informant, for reasons his own, came to detectives about conduct
occurring inside the district attorneys office, including allegations of
a plan intended only to destroy a man's career. We carefully listened.
With that knowledge, the department did nothing. Other than to alert the
accused, and in the process burn the two detectives [who captured that
exchange on an undercover wire, incidentally] who came forth with this
information. One of the results of that internal whistleblowing was
witnessing Detective Commander Eller, who also could not tolerate what
was occurring, lose his career and reputation undeservedly; scapegoated
in a manner which only heightened my concerns. It did not take much
inferential reasoning to realize that any dissidents were readily
silenced.

In a departure from protocol, police reports, physical evidence, and
investigative information was shared with Ramsey defense attorneys, all
of this in the district attorney's office "spirit of cooperation". I
served a search warrant, only to find later defense attorneys were
simply given copies of the evidence it yielded.

An FBI agent, whom I didn't even know, quietly tipped me off about what
the DA's office was doing behind our backs, conducting investigation the
police department was wholly unaware of.

I was advised not to speak to certain witnesses, and all but dissuaded
from pursuing particular investigative efforts. Polygraphs were
acceptable for some subjects, but others seemed immune from such
requests.

Innocent people were not "cleared", publicly or otherwise, even when it
was unmistakably the right thing to do, as reputations and lives were
destroyed.

Some in the district attorney's office, to this day, pursue weak,
defenseless, and innocent people in shameless tactics that one couldn't
believe more bizarre if it were made up.

I was told by one in the district attorney's office about being unable
to"break" a particular police officer from his resolute accounts of
events he had witnessed. In my opinion, this was not trial preparation,
this was an attempt to derail months of hard work.

I was repeatedly reminded by some in the district attorney's office just
how powerful and talented and resourceful particular defense attorneys
were. How could decisions be made this way?

There is evidence that was critical to the investigation, that to this
day has never been collected, because neither search warrants nor other
means were supported to do so. Not to mention evidence which still sits
today, untested in the laboratory, as differences continue about how to
proceed.

While investigative efforts were rebuffed, my search warrant affidavits
and attempts to gather evidence in the murder investigation of a six
year old child were met with refusals and, instead, the suggestion that
we "ask the permission of the Ramseys" before proceeding. And just
before conducting the Ramsey interviews, I thought it inconceivable I
was being lectured on "building trust".

These are but a few of the many examples of why I chose to leave. Having
to convince, to plead at times, to a district attorney's office to
assist us in the murder of a little girl, by way of the most basic of
investigative requests, was simply absurd.

When my detective partner and I had to literally hand search tens of
thousands of receipts, because we didn't have a search warrant to assist
us otherwise, we did so. But we lost tremendous opportunities to make
progress, to seek justice, and to know the truth. Auspicious timing and
strategy could have made a difference. When the might of the criminal
justice system should have brought all it had to bear on this
investigation, and didn't, we remained silent. We were trying to deliver
a murder case with hands tied behind our backs. It was difficult, and
our frustrations understandable. It was an assignment without chance of
success. Politics seemed to trump justice.

Even "outsiders" quickly assessed the situation, as the FBI politely
noted early on: "the government isn't in charge of this investigation."
As the nation watched, appropriately anticipating a fitting response to
the murder of the most innocent of victims, I stood bothered as to what
occurred behind the scenes. Those inside this case knew what was going
on. Eighteen months gave us a unique perspective.

We learned to ignore the campaign of misinformation in which we were
said to be bumbling along, or else just pursuing one or two suspects in
some ruthless vendetta. Much of what appeared in the press was
orchestrated by particular sources wishing to discredit the Boulder
Police Department. We watched the media spun, while we were prohibited
from exercising First Amendment rights. As disappointment and
frustration pervaded, detectives would remark to one another, "if it
reaches a particular point, I'm walking away."

But we would always tolerate it "just one more time." Last year, when we
discovered hidden cameras inside the Ramsey house, only to realize the
detectives had been unwittingly
videotaped, this should have rocked the police
department off its foundation. Instead, we
allowed that, too, to pass without challenge.

The detectives' enthusiasm became simply
resigned frustration, acquiescing to that
which should never have been tolerated. In the
media blitz, the pressure of the whole world
watching, important decisions seemed to be
premised on "how it would play" publicly.

Among at least a few of the detectives,
"there's something wrong here" became a catch
phrase. I witnessed others having to make
decisions which impacted their lives and
careers, watched the soul searching that
occurred as the ultimate questions were
pondered. As it goes, "evils that befall the
world are not nearly so often caused by bad
men, as they are by good men who are silent
when an opinion must be voiced." Although
several good men in the police department
shouted loudly behind closed doors, the
organization stood deafeningly silent at what
continued to occur unchallenged.

Last Spring, you, too, seemed at a loss.
I was taken aback when I was reminded of what
happened to Commander Eller when he stuck his
neck out. When reminded how politically
powerful the DA was. When reminded of the
hundreds of other cases the department had to
file with this district attorney's office, and
that this was but one case. And finally, when
I was asked, "what do you want done? The
system burned down?", it struck me dumb. But
when you conceded that there were those
inside the DA's office we had to simply
accept as "defense witnesses", and when we
were reduced to simply recording our
objections for "documentation purposes" -- I
knew I was not going to participate in this
much longer.

I believe the district attorney's office
is thoroughly compromised. When we were told
by one in the district attorney's office,
months before we had even completed our
investigation, that this case "is not
prosecutable," we shook our heads in
disbelief. A lot could have been forgiven, the
lesser transgressions ignored, for the right
things done. Instead, those in the district
attorney's office encouraged us to allow them
to "work their magic" (which I never fully
understood. Did that "magic" include sharing
our case file information with the defense
attorneys, dragging feet in evidence
collection, or believing that two decades of
used-car-dealing-style-plea-bargaining was
somehow going to solve this case?). Right and
wrong is just that. Some of these issues were
not shades of gray. Decision should have been
made as such. Whether a suspect a penniless
indigent with a public defender, or otherwise.

As contrasted by my experiences in
Georgia, for example, where my warrant
affidavits were met with a sense of support
and an obligation to the victim. Having worked
with able prosecutors in other jurisdictions,
having worked cases where justice was
aggressively sought, I have familiarity with
these prosecution professionals who hold a
strong sense of justice. And then, from
Georgia, the Great Lakes, the East Coast, the
South, I would return to Boulder, to again be
thoroughly demoralized.

We delayed and ignored, for far too long,
that which was "right", in deference of
maintaining this dysfunctional relationship
with the district attorney's office. This
wasn't a runaway train that couldn't be
stopped. Some of us bit our tongues as the
public was told of this "renewed cooperation"
between the police department and the district
attorney's office -- this at the very time the
detectives and those in the district
attorney's office weren't even on speaking
terms, the same time you had to act as a
liaison between the two agencies because the
detectives couldn't tolerate it. I was quite
frankly surprised, as you remarked on this
camaraderie, that there had not yet been a
fistfight.

In Boulder, where the politics, policies,
and pervasive thought has held for years, a
criminal justice system designed to deal with
such an event was not in place. Instead, we
had an institution that when needed most,
buckled. The system was paralyzed, as to this
day one continues to get away with murder.

Will there be a real attempt at justice?
I may be among the last to find out. The
department assigned me some of the most
sensitive and critical assignments in the
Ramsey case, including search warrants and
affidavits, the Atlanta projects, the
interviews of the Ramseys, and many other
sensitive assignments I won't mention. I
criss-crossed the country, conducting
interviews and investigation, pursuing
pedophiles and drifters, chasing and
discarding leads. I submitted over 250
investigative reports for this case alone. I'd
have been happy to assist the grand jury. But
the detectives, who know this case better than
anyone, were told we would not be allowed as
grand jury advisory witnesses, as is common
place. If a grand jury is convened, the
records will be sealed, and we will not
witness what goes on inside such a proceeding.

What part of the case gets presented, what
doesn't?

District Attorney Hunter's continued
reference to a "runaway" grand jury is also
puzzling. Is he afraid that he cannot control
the outcome? Why would one not simply present
evidence to jurors, and let the jury decide?

Perhaps the DA is hoping for a voluntary
confession one day. What's needed, though, is
an effective district attorney to conduct the
inquiry, not a remorseful killer.

The district attorney's office should be
the ethical and judicial compass for the
community, ensuring that justice is served --
or at least, sought. Instead, our DA has
becoming a spinning compass for the media. The
perpetuating inference continues that justice
is somehow just around the corner. I do not
see that occurring, as the two year
anniversary of this murder approaches.

It is my belief the district attorney's
office has effectively crippled this case. The
time for intervention is now. It is difficult
to imagine a more compelling situation for the
appointment of an entirely independent
prosecution team to be introduced into this
matter, who would oversee an attempt at
righting this case.


* * * * *


Unmistakably and worst of all, we have
failed a little girl named Jon Benet. Six
years old. Many good people, decent, innocent
citizens, are forever bound by the murder of
this child. There is a tremendous obligation
to them. But an infinitely greater obligation
to her, as she rests in a small cemetery far
away from this anomaly of a place called
Boulder.

A distant second stands the second
tragedy -- the failure of the system in
Boulder. Ask the mistreated prosecution
witnesses in this investigation, who
cooperated for months, who now refuse to talk
until a special prosecutor is established. Ask
former detectives who have quietly tendered
their shields in disheartenment. Ask all those
innocent people personally affected by this
case, who have had their lives upset because
of the arbitrary label of "suspect" being
attached. Ask the cops who cannot speak out
because they still wear a badge. The list is
long.

I know that to speak out brings its own
issues. But as you also know, there are others
who are as disheartened as I am, who are
biting their tongues, searching their
consciences. I know what may occur -- I may be
portrayed as frustrated, disgruntled. Not so.

I have had an exemplary and decorated thirteen
year career as a police officer and detective.

I didn't want to challenge the system. In no
way do I wish to harm this case or subvert the
long and arduous work that has been done. I
only wish to speak up and ask for assistance
in making a change. I want justice for a child
who was killed in her home on Christmas night.

This case has defined many aspects of all
our lives, and will continue to do so for all
of our days. My colleagues put their hearts
and souls into this case, and I will take some
satisfaction that it was the detective team
who showed tremendous efforts and loyalties to
seeking justice for this victim. Many
sacrifices were made. Families. Marriages. In
the latter months of the investigation, I was
diagnosed with a disease which will require a
lifetime of medication. Although my health
declined, I was resolved to see the case
through to a satisfactory closure. I did that
on June 1-2. And on June 22, I requested a
leave of absence, without mention of what
transpired in our department since Christmas
1996.

What I witnessed for two years of my life
was so fundamentally flawed, it reduced me to
tears. Everything the badge ever meant to me
was so foundationally shaken, one should never
have to sell one's soul as a prerequisite to
wear it. On June 26, after leaving the
investigation for the last time, and leaving
the city of Boulder, I wept as I drove home,
removing my detectives shield and placing it
on the seat beside me, later putting it in a
desk drawer at home, knowing I could never put
it back on.

There is some consolation that a greater
justice awaits the person who committed these
acts, independent of this system we call
"justice." A greater justice awaits. Of that,
at least, we can be confident.

As a now infamous author, panicked in the
night, once penned, "use that good southern
common sense of yours." I will do just that.

Originally from a small southern town where
this would never have been tolerated, where
respect for law and order and traditions were
instilled in me, I will take that murderous
author's out-of-context advice. And use my
good southern common sense to put this case
into the perspective it necessitates -- a
precious child was murdered. There needs to be
some consequence to that.

Regretfully, I tender this letter, and my
police career, a calling which I loved. I do
this because I cannot continue to sanction by
my silence what has occurred in this case. It
was never a fair playing field, the "game" was
simply unacceptable anymore. And that's what
makes this all so painful. The detectives
never had a chance. If ever there were a
case, and if ever there were a victim, who
truly meant something to the detectives
pursuing the truth, this is it. If not this
case, what case? Until such time an
independent prosecutor is appointed to oversee
this case, I will not be a part of this. What
went on was simply wrong.

I recalled a favorite passage recently,
Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter: "Just
remember that one thing does not abide by
majority rule, Scout -- it's your conscience."

At thirty-six years old, I thought my
life's passion as a police officer was carved
in stone. I realize that although I may have
to trade my badge for a carpenter's hammer, I
will do so with a clear conscience. It is with
a heavy heart that I offer my resignation from
the Boulder Police Department, in protest of
this continuing travesty.



[Signed]



Detective Steve Thomas #638
Detective Division
Boulder Police Department
August 6, 1998

____________________
"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Gerry McCann: Police CATS (Case Administration and Tracking System) Number 19309 - NB: The 19309 number is still on the Police database, but all data within the file appears to have been ERASED...

Advocatus

Posts : 340
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by jd on 19.01.12 16:37

Ian Woods from Sky News :
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?



____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 20.01.12 8:31

@Advocatus wrote:
Stella wrote:Great control there Advocatus, it really is much appreciated.

As for other Police forces, the PJ are no different to the Boulder Police, where JonBenet Ramsey is concerned. Steve Thomas and his team wanted to nail them, but was prevented. Goncalo Amaral and his team wanted to nail the T9, but they were also prevented. It's what goes on in the upper echelons, is where the rot sits.

I had to brace myself, count to 100, and have a very stiff drink before using all those XXXs~~~!!!




AS an aside I recently read the lead Detective's resignation letter, he hit all the road blocks that Goncala seems to have too, as you say it was all totally corrupt at the upper levels:

Yes, thank you for that letter, I must get back into that case again at some point, the parallels are quite chilling. Reading that, you could not help but think of Goncalo Amaral and Lenny Harper and knowing what I do about JonBenet, I'm sick of hearing about paedophilia and politics in the same sentence. I might need to follow your tac with the counting and something strong soon. But not this time of the morning.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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