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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Not on my watch

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Not on my watch

Post by aquila on 25.02.12 21:06

Sorry for the bad headline. I obviously read too may tabloids. I spent a whole day re-reading (again) the rogatory interviews. None of those interviewed IMO could remember what they did on what day, never mind the time of day. There was a CM remark (please someone give me the precise link for this - Stella please help here) that they didn't have mobiles or watches on the night Madeleine was 'abducted'.

I have looked at every photo and I find K and G wear watches. They also mention that when they went for their run (whilst everyone else was looking for Madeleine) they did it in so many minutes and you need a watch for that. In all the subsequent interviews they are wearing watches (along with wristbands of course).

If we are to believe they did checks every 15, 20, 30, 40 (who knows how frequently - all of their accounts differ) they must have had a watch or a mobile phone with a clock/alarm. Stella is needed here with the mobile phone pings for 3rd May - I'm too pooped with info to compare. There may well have been a clock on the wall of the Tapas bar (who'd rely on that to do your checks on your children you'd left alone in an apartment with open doors!).

If you put your children into a creche whilst on holiday you need a watch so you are not late to pick them up. If you book tennis lessons for a certain time you need a watch to make sure you are on time. If you go to dinner at the Tapas bar each evening at a pre-arranged time you need a time-piece.

The McCann children had a routine (so they say) if you're children are in bed by 7.30pm all safely bathed and snuggled down, you need a time reference.

None of them had a time reference IMO - ain't that strange!



So how come no-one could tell the time?

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by tigger on 25.02.12 22:06

It's one of their many slip-ups.

They stated they didn't take mobiles or watches with them as 'they were so into each other' (excuse me bad )

But in the book Kate writes, 'it was 9.05 by Gerry's watch' (not litt. quote).

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by aquila on 25.02.12 22:12

@tigger wrote:It's one of their many slip-ups.

They stated they didn't take mobiles or watches with them as 'they were so into each other' (excuse me )

But in the book Kate writes, 'it was 9.05 by Gerry's watch' (not litt. quote).

and then...another 'friend' sent them new mobile phones in Portugal...with new Portuguese sim cards....how convenient. How many friends can you have.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Watch out!

Post by Guest on 25.02.12 23:58

@aquila wrote:Sorry for the bad headline. I obviously read too may tabloids. I spent a whole day re-reading (again) the rogatory interviews. None of those interviewed IMO could remember what they did on what day, never mind the time of day. There was a CM remark (please someone give me the precise link for this - Stella please help here) that they didn't have mobiles or watches on the night Madeleine was 'abducted'.

I have looked at every photo and I find K and G wear watches. They also mention that when they went for their run (whilst everyone else was looking for Madeleine) they did it in so many minutes and you need a watch for that. In all the subsequent interviews they are wearing watches (along with wristbands of course).

If we are to believe they did checks every 15, 20, 30, 40 (who knows how frequently - all of their accounts differ) they must have had a watch or a mobile phone with a clock/alarm. Stella is needed here with the mobile phone pings for 3rd May - I'm too pooped with info to compare. There may well have been a clock on the wall of the Tapas bar (who'd rely on that to do your checks on your children you'd left alone in an apartment with open doors!).

If you put your children into a creche whilst on holiday you need a watch so you are not late to pick them up. If you book tennis lessons for a certain time you need a watch to make sure you are on time. If you go to dinner at the Tapas bar each evening at a pre-arranged time you need a time-piece.

The McCann children had a routine (so they say) if you're children are in bed by 7.30pm all safely bathed and snuggled down, you need a time reference.

None of them had a time reference IMO - ain't that strange!



So how come no-one could tell the time?

Aquila, very well observed!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 26.02.12 6:14

Agree that the whole time thing always sounded fishy, on the one hand I remember the no mobile phone/watch statement, but then on the other,how could they then be certain to within a minute or two what they were doing on that fateful night. The conclusion I drew in my mind was that if they got Clarrie to say that they had no watches on, that would give them an excuse for the variations, and because Clarrie is such an upstanding believable sort of a chap, everything would be just a-okay. BUT, if they had no watches as was claimed the timelines would either not exist or the statements would have been wildly different, because peoples perception of time does vary in my experience. And they worked on two timelines so either the first one didn't make sense or allow for a credible account, or they were already feeling like the absolute minutiae of their story would be picked apart, almost within minutes of the "abduction".

It would be more realistic if the Tapas all gave different times, because in the heat of a real drama you wouldn't care about it, you would just be tearing around the place frantically searching and you crisis would only begin from the exact moment the "disaster" arose. IMO. Doctors as we were told can be calm and cool under dramatic circumstances. True enough in an objective scenario I would have thought but in the subjective sense, when it is something affecting those close to you one would expect a "normal" human response, i.e. panic. The Dr's I know personally admit that they are just as paranoid worry mongers about their own children as parents with no medical training. It is something we've had a laugh about. The ones I know quite well, would be going nuts in that scenario, not getting their stories straight.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Cristobell on 26.02.12 7:11

I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by russiandoll on 26.02.12 17:43

@Cristobell wrote:I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

yet so precise at times.........

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."

from Kate's book... extremely precise.......and he was wearing a watch .


When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

from Gerry's arguido statement September 07.

but from the timeline sheets of May 3rd, Gerry checked either at approx 9.10 -15 or at 9.15.


more precise 4 months after the event... how very strange. I thought memory got worse, not better, over time.

____________________



             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: Not on my watch

Post by tigger on 26.02.12 18:51

I knew you'd find the right quote and page!

Yes memory should get worse over time, in this case however, after five years we may have total recall.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Angelique on 26.02.12 19:07

IIRC it was said by CM and will look for it - but afterwards he recanted and said something like "Ok, I was wrong, some of them didn't have watches". But will go and search.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Angelique on 26.02.12 19:19

Here it is:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

More on the deleted call records, 04 December 2008

More on the deleted call records Gazeta Digital

4.12.2008

snip
"The evidence from the call logs gives the strongest clue that the "Tapas 9" left their telephones in their rooms when they went to dinner. Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's spokesperson, confirmed this. In an interview, reported on 6th April 2008 by Ned Temko of "The Guardian", Mr Mitchell said: "You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened…. We would say that, if the police had a perfect time line across nine people, that would be a damn sight more suspicious than the fractured, illogical, composite statements they might have got"

Still looking for the retraction

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Angelique on 26.02.12 19:30

Here is the retraction:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html

Clarence Mitchell backtracks on previous statement about watches

Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.

The Guardian 06 April 2008

"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't...

Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Genbug on 26.02.12 21:28

@russiandoll wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

yet so precise at times.........

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."

from Kate's book... extremely precise.......and he was wearing a watch .


When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

from Gerry's arguido statement September 07.

but from the timeline sheets of May 3rd, Gerry checked either at approx 9.10 -15 or at 9.15.


more precise 4 months after the event... how very strange. I thought memory got worse, not better, over time.

Russiandoll, he seems to have an amazing memory for times!

On his 10 May statement we get gems like - "the following day (Sunday), the children woke up at 08h00, the deponent and his wife having woken up at around 07h30. They got dressed and at about 08h40 they left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as on the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, therefore they were not all seated at the same table.

He thinks that MATHEW and his wife RACHEL did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children again sat at the same table among the adults, and it finished at around 09h25.

The deponent, his wife KATE and their three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route, where they arrived at 09h40"


So on 10 May he remembered all of these times from the day after they arrived? In the same statement he gives times for virtually very move he made that week, even what time he went to change into his tennis gear and what time he finished talking to the coach.


However, it seems his obsession with numbers doesn't apply to his wife and children:


"When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie."

So he remembers what time he got up and had breakfast and tennis lessons each morning but doesn't remember what night Madeleine slept in his room or whether it was him that got up to comfort Amelie? Really? And he doesn't remember any of the following things that happened on what would be the most momentous day of his life? Things that would be imprinted on your mind forever when such a tragedy occurs?


"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by aquila on 26.02.12 22:04

@Genbug wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

yet so precise at times.........

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."

from Kate's book... extremely precise.......and he was wearing a watch .


When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

from Gerry's arguido statement September 07.

but from the timeline sheets of May 3rd, Gerry checked either at approx 9.10 -15 or at 9.15.


more precise 4 months after the event... how very strange. I thought memory got worse, not better, over time.

Russiandoll, he seems to have an amazing memory for times!

On his 10 May statement we get gems like - "the following day (Sunday), the children woke up at 08h00, the deponent and his wife having woken up at around 07h30. They got dressed and at about 08h40 they left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as on the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, therefore they were not all seated at the same table.

He thinks that MATHEW and his wife RACHEL did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children again sat at the same table among the adults, and it finished at around 09h25.

The deponent, his wife KATE and their three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route, where they arrived at 09h40"


So on 10 May he remembered all of these times from the day after they arrived? In the same statement he gives times for virtually very move he made that week, even what time he went to change into his tennis gear and what time he finished talking to the coach.


However, it seems his obsession with numbers doesn't apply to his wife and children:


"When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie."

So he remembers what time he got up and had breakfast and tennis lessons each morning but doesn't remember what night Madeleine slept in his room or whether it was him that got up to comfort Amelie? Really? And he doesn't remember any of the following things that happened on what would be the most momentous day of his life? Things that would be imprinted on your mind forever when such a tragedy occurs?


"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

He remembered he took his wallet! Now, forgive me if I'm wrong here but there are days we can all remember exactly what we were doing..JFK's shooting, John Lennon's shooting, the death of Elvis, the death of Diana (the list could go on) people who are unrelated to us and yet we remember what we were doing that day. We remember, and yet the very eloquent, intelligent, high flying doctor can't remember if he took his mobile phone with him when his daughter went missing and can remember maybe taking maybe his wallet. I'm gobsmacked.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Curiouser & curiouser

Post by Guest on 26.02.12 22:13

@Genbug wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

yet so precise at times.........

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."

from Kate's book... extremely precise.......and he was wearing a watch .


When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

from Gerry's arguido statement September 07.

but from the timeline sheets of May 3rd, Gerry checked either at approx 9.10 -15 or at 9.15.


more precise 4 months after the event... how very strange. I thought memory got worse, not better, over time.

Russiandoll, he seems to have an amazing memory for times!

On his 10 May statement we get gems like - "the following day (Sunday), the children woke up at 08h00, the deponent and his wife having woken up at around 07h30. They got dressed and at about 08h40 they left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as on the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, therefore they were not all seated at the same table.

He thinks that MATHEW and his wife RACHEL did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children again sat at the same table among the adults, and it finished at around 09h25.

The deponent, his wife KATE and their three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route, where they arrived at 09h40"


So on 10 May he remembered all of these times from the day after they arrived? In the same statement he gives times for virtually very move he made that week, even what time he went to change into his tennis gear and what time he finished talking to the coach.


However, it seems his obsession with numbers doesn't apply to his wife and children:


"When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie."

So he remembers what time he got up and had breakfast and tennis lessons each morning but doesn't remember what night Madeleine slept in his room or whether it was him that got up to comfort Amelie? Really? And he doesn't remember any of the following things that happened on what would be the most momentous day of his life? Things that would be imprinted on your mind forever when such a tragedy occurs?


"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

[color:c0c1=000000]Gerry being heard as an arguido on september 7th 2007:

Blood was mentioned. The defence lawyer reacting to this, i.e. Gerry's lawyer, tried to explain it away. To no avail:

The
defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if
Madeleine bled. To which he said
it was common for
Madeleine to have nosebleeds.
He says that he doesn’t know if in fact
his daughter bled
while on holiday
in Portugal, because he
does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press,
regarding the
detection of human blood in
the apartment where his
daughter disappeared.


Bleeding occurred: before May 3rd.
Press comments: after May 3rd.

How, in the name of bleeding Jezus, could Gerry's observing his daughters bleeding BEFORE may 3rd have been clouded/compromised by the media attention AFTER May 3rd??

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by aquila on 26.02.12 22:18

@Portia wrote:
@Genbug wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

yet so precise at times.........

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."

from Kate's book... extremely precise.......and he was wearing a watch .


When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

from Gerry's arguido statement September 07.

Is one of your names Advocatus?

but from the timeline sheets of May 3rd, Gerry checked either at approx 9.10 -15 or at 9.15.


more precise 4 months after the event... how very strange. I thought memory got worse, not better, over time.

Russiandoll, he seems to have an amazing memory for times!

On his 10 May statement we get gems like - "the following day (Sunday), the children woke up at 08h00, the deponent and his wife having woken up at around 07h30. They got dressed and at about 08h40 they left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as on the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, therefore they were not all seated at the same table.

He thinks that MATHEW and his wife RACHEL did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children again sat at the same table among the adults, and it finished at around 09h25.

The deponent, his wife KATE and their three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route, where they arrived at 09h40"


So on 10 May he remembered all of these times from the day after they arrived? In the same statement he gives times for virtually very move he made that week, even what time he went to change into his tennis gear and what time he finished talking to the coach.


However, it seems his obsession with numbers doesn't apply to his wife and children:


"When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie."

So he remembers what time he got up and had breakfast and tennis lessons each morning but doesn't remember what night Madeleine slept in his room or whether it was him that got up to comfort Amelie? Really? And he doesn't remember any of the following things that happened on what would be the most momentous day of his life? Things that would be imprinted on your mind forever when such a tragedy occurs?


"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

[color:3d8b=000000]Gerry being heard as an arguido on september 7th 2007:

Blood was mentioned. The defence lawyer reacting to this, i.e. Gerry's lawyer, tried to explain it away. To no avail:

The
defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if
Madeleine bled. To which he said
it was common for
Madeleine to have nosebleeds.
He says that he doesn’t know if in fact
his daughter bled
while on holiday
in Portugal, because he
does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press,
regarding the
detection of human blood in
the apartment where his
daughter disappeared.


Bleeding occurred: before May 3rd.
Press comments: after May 3rd.

How, in the name of bleeding Jezus, could Gerry's observing his daughters bleeding BEFORE may 3rd have been clouded/compromised by the media attention AFTER May 3rd??

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by aquila on 26.02.12 22:24

@aquila wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@Genbug wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I think it is a good title btw and also a bit of a Eureka moment. Not wearing watches, having phones etc, must have been a group decision prior to the 'abduction'. A coverall excuse for being vague with their timings.

yet so precise at times.........

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch."

from Kate's book... extremely precise.......and he was wearing a watch .


When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch.

from Gerry's arguido statement September 07.

Is one of your names Advocatus?

but from the timeline sheets of May 3rd, Gerry checked either at approx 9.10 -15 or at 9.15.


more precise 4 months after the event... how very strange. I thought memory got worse, not better, over time.

Russiandoll, he seems to have an amazing memory for times!

On his 10 May statement we get gems like - "the following day (Sunday), the children woke up at 08h00, the deponent and his wife having woken up at around 07h30. They got dressed and at about 08h40 they left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as on the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, therefore they were not all seated at the same table.

He thinks that MATHEW and his wife RACHEL did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children again sat at the same table among the adults, and it finished at around 09h25.

The deponent, his wife KATE and their three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route, where they arrived at 09h40"


So on 10 May he remembered all of these times from the day after they arrived? In the same statement he gives times for virtually very move he made that week, even what time he went to change into his tennis gear and what time he finished talking to the coach.


However, it seems his obsession with numbers doesn't apply to his wife and children:


"When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie."

So he remembers what time he got up and had breakfast and tennis lessons each morning but doesn't remember what night Madeleine slept in his room or whether it was him that got up to comfort Amelie? Really? And he doesn't remember any of the following things that happened on what would be the most momentous day of his life? Things that would be imprinted on your mind forever when such a tragedy occurs?


"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

[color=000000]Gerry being heard as an arguido on september 7th 2007:

Blood was mentioned. The defence lawyer reacting to this, i.e. Gerry's lawyer, tried to explain it away. To no avail:

The
defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if
Madeleine bled. To which he said
it was common for
Madeleine to have nosebleeds.
He says that he doesn’t know if in fact
his daughter bled
while on holiday
in Portugal, because he
does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press,
regarding the
detection of human blood in
the apartment where his
daughter disappeared.


Bleeding occurred: before May 3rd.
Press comments: after May 3rd.

How, in the name of bleeding Jezus, could Gerry's observing his daughters bleeding BEFORE may 3rd have been clouded/compromised by the media attention AFTER May 3rd??

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

Yes, I have a lot of thoughts Advocatus and they are not disruptive to finding what happened to Madeleine. I care what happened to this little girl. I care that she is unfound.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by tigger on 27.02.12 6:55

Genbug wrote: ( I take it this is from the PJ files)

"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

This is slightly off topic but concerns the Smiths' sighting and the photographs of 5a on 3/5.
There are a pair of beige trousers thrown on the bed as if in haste. I am 100% sure Gerry did that fake run to create an independent witness. The logical thing to do is to change after that because both the Smiths and JT gave roughly the same description of the clothes the abductor was wearing.
Not only that, but he remembers what he was wearing months afterwards because this was important for his alibi.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Genbug on 27.02.12 10:28

@tigger wrote:Genbug wrote: ( I take it this is from the PJ files)

"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night."

This is slightly off topic but concerns the Smiths' sighting and the photographs of 5a on 3/5.
There are a pair of beige trousers thrown on the bed as if in haste. I am 100% sure Gerry did that fake run to create an independent witness. The logical thing to do is to change after that because both the Smiths and JT gave roughly the same description of the clothes the abductor was wearing.
Not only that, but he remembers what he was wearing months afterwards because this was important for his alibi.

Sorry tigger - yes, taken from his arguido questioning dated 7 September 2007.

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by aquila on 02.01.13 12:49

I'm resurrecting this topic started by me as Christobell has posted a new topic of a hate list and one of her quoted posts on this list was in reply to this topic. I stand by my comments and my reasoning for this thread and just wanted to point out that people looking at the hate list may want to look up this thread. I don't know of anyone who hates the McCanns. I know of people who don't believe the McCann's version of events and question it.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Guest on 02.01.13 13:00

I think it's modern parlance that hater has come to mean "a person who doesn't agree with another on a given topic, particularly one deemed to be of a controversial nature".

I try to move with the times and adopt new expressions but I'm quite happy to leave "hater" where it belongs - with adolescents whose vocabulary will I hope improve with age.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by statsman on 02.01.13 14:59

There's a passage in Matthew's gospel that I first heard in relation to the sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland.

It is "He who is not with me is against me".

This seems to be the thinking of those that like to call themselves "pro-McCanns".

Having talked to many people about the McCanns, I've never heard anyone say that they were "with the McCanns" and that includes the relatively few who believe that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.

By the same token, I haven't heard anyone that's gone as far as to say they hated the McCanns.

For me, there's a vast difference between not liking and hating, but for fanatical supporters I suspect they are not able to see that difference.

statsman

Posts : 118
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by PeterMac on 02.01.13 17:14

@statsman wrote:There's a passage in Matthew's gospel that I first heard in relation to the sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland.
It is "He who is not with me is against me".
This seems to be the thinking of those that like to call themselves "pro-McCanns".
Having talked to many people about the McCanns, I've never heard anyone say that they were "with the McCanns" and that includes the relatively few who believe that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
By the same token, I haven't heard anyone that's gone as far as to say they hated the McCanns.
For me, there's a vast difference between not liking and hating, but for fanatical supporters I suspect they are not able to see that difference.

It is one of the classical logical fallacious arguments. The fallacy of bifurcation.
It supposes that there is no third (or fourth or fifth ) way.
If you do not slavishly follow everything the McCanns and their apostles and acolytes say, or have said, or may say in the future, even if what they say and have said clearly makes no sense, and contains internal inconsistencies and downright lies -
THEN
You hate them.
Which is of course utter drivel.
A jury or bench of Magistrates which finds a person guilty on the facts, despite her denials does not per se HATE the accused. They may and frequently do, feel tremendous sympathy and compassion for the person and the situation in which she found her self (or him !)
But one does doubt whether the uncritical McC believers could begin to grasp that concept.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Guest on 02.01.13 17:41

Right. I don't hate them. I hate the "situation". I would pay folding money to have a good word with them at my kitchen table ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by PeterMac on 02.01.13 21:20

Châtelaine wrote:Right. I don't hate them. I hate the "situation". I would pay folding money to have a good word with them at my kitchen table ...
"Just put it in a brown envelope and address it to McCanns, Rothley. It will get there"
Isn't that what the pink one said?

Why is he still free ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not on my watch

Post by Guest on 02.01.13 22:20

Haha. I'd pay folding money, Peter, but not let it go unaccounted for ... if you get my drift ;-)

ETA the "pink one". Yes, right, a very strange player, quote: "lying with as many teeth as he has" and always gets away with it too.

ETA2 I cannot wait for the libel trial to start [again]. And I cannot imagine Dr. Amaral to lose such a quest. Everything the McCanns say they suffered and the "search" suffered has been contradicted meanwhile by themselves. The PJ files are evidence that he only worded what was the conclusion of both Portuguese and British LE involved. What else?
We have, though, to bear in mind that he had a suspended conviction of misrepresentation of a crime, which never happened, as the accused were all released ... The mind boggles from time to time.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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