The Kipper and the Corpse

It wasn't a distraction, it was asking the question

Hello folks, I know this is a side issue and I am not getting a t anyone specifically here but this term could be construed as a little offensive. I am not normally a politically correct person, I actually feel the idea to be overused, however, I assume what is meant by this term is that the McCanns kn elt down, put their heads on the bed and were waving their arms and wailing, there have been several different descriptions. I then assume the "arabs" bit is meant to mean the prayer of Muslims or salat, practiced 5 times a day. This is not a spontaneous kneeling and waving of arms, but a practised, timed and carefully performed ritual prayer. It is meant to be carried out before God, with the forehead and hands touching the ground when the body has been thoroughly cleaned, by the individual, focussing totally on the prayer, the words and actions in reverence to God. There is no wailing, but there are words in arabic or whichever language the believer speaks if he/she can not speak arabic. In addition Muslims are not just Arabs, they can be English, Welsh, Scottish, Malaysian, Indonesian, American, Indian, Pakistani, Australian, etc, indeed there are over 90 million Muslims in China. So praying like Arabs is a little odd, simply because prostration occurs in Hindu Puja, Buddhist prayer and in some form or other in most of the major and many of the not so well known religions of the world. An earlier post on another thread , I cannot remember by whom, could not understand the idea of Muslims throwing stones at some rocks during the Hajj pilgrimage, Well, that too is part of a religious process where the believer is symbolically attempting to cast stones at a structure representing the devil. Again in many world religions there are ideas of getting rid of the devil, or casting out demons. Yes, to people outside these faiths, unless it is explained, as I have briefly tried to do here, then it all seems strange. To many non Christians I have spoken to and worked with, the idea of having an imaginary/real friend called Jesus is also strange, as is the Buddhist idea of letting go, during the meditative process. Religion can be baffling and yes, has caused more than confusion and heartbreak, but when we try to understand it instead of fear it, then it can also be interesting. Religion is often used and hijacked by the wrong people for the wrong purposes..In this case, I believe religion has been used as a badge and a screen. "we are Catholics, therefore we cannot etc etc etc" I once knew a man who said he was a born again Christian so he never lied....he did. If the McCanns were said to be "praying like arabs" then that is inaccurate and a bit derogatory. It does show a lack of knowledge of religion but then again, research has shown that many "believers" know very little about the religions they believe in. Like the old story of the teenager who goes into the jewellers and asks for a cross in Anytown, UK and says, "oh and can I have one with that little bloke on". In this case I am of the opinion that the use of religion, while both parents are supposed to have come from Catholic families, has been to ensure that sympathy from a community was engendered right from the beginning. However, if the description is correct, then to use the phrase "praying like arabs" is insulting to Arabs.

The expression used was taken from articles, transcripts and translations, hence the use here, i agree it could be offensive but then everything is offensive to someone these days. but no is offense is meant and admins can please remove from my posts here if it is a problem.

I fully understand the distraction theory. Just not how it applies to that evening.

They were in charge of calling the police. They knew that once the police arrived they would not have control of the location.
They could also not know when the police would bring in the dogs. They did not call the police until about 10.40 I believe.

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

Adjustments to the crime scene were made the following day when the tennis bag and the pink blanket must have been removed from 5a by a person or persons unknown. That's all we know.

The idea which was implicated that third parties were wildly trying to hide a corpse or incriminating items, makes a number of other people accessories to the fact and is in complete contradiction to david_uk's 'keeping it simple'.

I stand by my earlier remark that being 'contemptuous' of other theories is not an attitude I've come across often here. A hypothesis has to be set up in order to be disproved. I've just given my opinion on the above. It doesn't take all of the evidence of that evening into account. It isn't logical, imo.

tigger wrote:I fully understand the distraction theory. Just not how it applies to that evening.

They were in charge of calling the police. They knew that once the police arrived they would not have control of the location.
They could also not know when the police would bring in the dogs. They did not call the police until about 10.40 I believe.

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

Adjustments to the crime scene were made the following day when the tennis bag and the pink blanket must have been removed from 5a by a person or persons unknown. That's all we know.

The idea which was implicated that third parties were wildly trying to hide a corpse or incriminating items, makes a number of other people accessories to the fact and is in complete contradiction to david_uk's 'keeping it simple'.

I stand by my earlier remark that being 'contemptuous' of other theories is not an attitude I've come across often here. A hypothesis has to be set up in order to be disproved. I've just given my opinion on the above. It doesn't take all of the evidence of that evening into account. It isn't logical, imo.

you dont understand how the distraction applies to that evening. ok then[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Im not the only one who dismisses certain theories and im not pushing a particular overall theory either. I am not trying to take the rest of evening into account, just opening discussion on that one particular aspect , that being Gerry and kates odd behaviour of falling to the ground and crying. It was noted by various witness and always struck me as odd, it was when watching FT episode that I pondered if it was a spare of the moment means of distraction?. that is all.

Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

This could have been the question gerry mcccann was asking. It certainly wasn't down to their distress they did this. Plus we have seen their 'distress' in the days after

They were in charge of calling the police. They knew that once the police arrived they would not have control of the location. They could also not know when the police would bring in the dogs. They did not call the police until about 10.40 I believe.

This is the bottom line.....They wanted to control the situation. For example, they stick by the jane tanner sighting because they control it. They ignore the Smith sighting because they have no control over it

Agree with you tigger. After Madeleine's demise, I think the MCs were pretty much in control of the whole situation as they have continued to be in the subsequent months and years, with a possible exception of the time when they were made arguidos. They set the scene up, then they called the police. No need for such an attention grabbing, ludicrous form of distraction imho.

I pondered if it was a spur of the moment means of distraction?

What reason would they have a moment of distraction? from what? I don't fully understand

[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

candyfloss wrote:[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

First Gerry on the reception floor, then Gerry and Kate both on the edge of the bed in 5a. Is that correct candyfloss?

jd wrote:

I pondered if it was a spur of the moment means of distraction?

What reason would they have a moment of distraction? from what? I don't fully understand

I'm dropping this discussion, because I've obviously upset David_uk. I did tackle the Kipper and the corpse possibly a little too fiercely. But I was thinking of the corpse of a little girl so it could never be funny for me.
I felt his attitude to be inconsistent and in this case it seemed to me inappropriate to try to compare these two scenarios. Because in the one case there is a very real dead little girl imo.
It also seemed to go right against all the theories and principles of 'keeping things simple' that D-uk keeps posting about, dismissing all other possibilities.
I took it to be a wind-up exercise in poor taste.

I'm sorry it looked like turning into a slanging match, but I stand by my remark on the TB post and the use of the word contemptuous in regard to other's theories.
So apologies if I've upset anyone, there are so many dedicated people here, working for nothing, running this site - it's too valuable.
When I started here, I had quite different theories, which were tested against others' opinions and discarded, it's a process and thanks to having my ideas shot down in flames, new and improved ones arise. So chaps, I'm back to the grindstone.

yep, it was perhaps a ludicrous distraction technique.I think it was to distract. It was noticed they where not actually crying. If we discount for moment that it was not to cause a distraction or spontanous display of grief !. What was the reason?.

I don't know what is going on with this discussion (feel a bit lost tbh) but I think there was no distraction intended....it was asking a question of the GNR

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

First Gerry on the reception floor, then Gerry and Kate both on the edge of the bed in 5a. Is that correct candyfloss?

According to Mr Amaral yes (it may be in witness statements too) from the truth of the lie documentary. Here is the transcript of that part of the film..........

06.04 – According to the testimony of the Ocean Club's manager, when the GNR patrol arrived on location, the child's father threw himself at the officers' feet, like a praying Arab, completely out of control over his daughter's disappearance. The same scene was repeated, according to the officers, in the couple's bedroom.

Take a look at the video.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

candyfloss wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

First Gerry on the reception floor, then Gerry and Kate both on the edge of the bed in 5a. Is that correct candyfloss?

According to Mr Amaral yes (it may be in witness statements too) from the truth of the lie documentary. Here is the transcript of that part of the film..........

06.04 – According to the testimony of the Ocean Club's manager, when the GNR patrol arrived on location, the child's father threw himself at the officers' feet, like a praying Arab, completely out of control over his daughter's disappearance. The same scene was repeated, according to the officers, in the couple's bedroom.

Take a look at the video.

[url=http://www.mccannfiles.com/id225.html

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So this was before the PJ turned up. Can we assume the first was just gerry was outside 5a and then the next, inside shortly after?. Once is odd, twice is bizzare

I dont understand the reference to Masonic signal?!. This wasnt an event filmed and broadcast live that evening! or am I missing the point on that one?

david_uk wrote:yep, it was perhaps a ludicrous distraction technique.I think it was to distract. It was noticed they where not actually crying. If we discount for moment that it was not to cause a distraction or spontanous display of grief !. What was the reason?.

Trying to assimilate and demonstrate the feeling of insurmountable grief that they did not really feel? Their acting got better and better later on though.

david_uk wrote:

tigger wrote:I fully understand the distraction theory. Just not how it applies to that evening.

They were in charge of calling the police. They knew that once the police arrived they would not have control of the location.
They could also not know when the police would bring in the dogs. They did not call the police until about 10.40 I believe.

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

Adjustments to the crime scene were made the following day when the tennis bag and the pink blanket must have been removed from 5a by a person or persons unknown. That's all we know.

The idea which was implicated that third parties were wildly trying to hide a corpse or incriminating items, makes a number of other people accessories to the fact and is in complete contradiction to david_uk's 'keeping it simple'.

I stand by my earlier remark that being 'contemptuous' of other theories is not an attitude I've come across often here. A hypothesis has to be set up in order to be disproved. I've just given my opinion on the above. It doesn't take all of the evidence of that evening into account. It isn't logical, imo.

you dont understand how the distraction applies to that evening. ok then[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Im not the only one who dismisses certain theories and im not pushing a particular overall theory either. I am not trying to take the rest of evening into account, just opening discussion on that one particular aspect , that being Gerry and kates odd behaviour of falling to the ground and crying. It was noted by various witness and always struck me as odd, it was when watching FT episode that I pondered if it was a spare of the moment means of distraction?. that is all.

What also strikes me as strange is that they both do exactly the same thing in the same manner at the same time. So no spontaneous grief.

Jean wrote:Very clever indeed. I thought it was a joke at the end when it was asked about the gorilla but yes it was really there and I hadn't seen it!

Well, I got 14 passes BUT I DID SEE THE GORILLA!!!

I wonder what that says about me?

Ribisl wrote:

david_uk wrote:yep, it was perhaps a ludicrous distraction technique.I think it was to distract. It was noticed they where not actually crying. If we discount for moment that it was not to cause a distraction or spontanous display of grief !. What was the reason?.

Trying to assimilate and demonstrate the feeling of insurmountable grief that they did not really feel? Their acting got better and better later on though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

hmmm. Surely in this case they should of been assimilating and demonstrating an insurmountable urge to be outside searching for their daughter, not sat in the bedroom!?. If it was just the bedroom scene this was done I could except it was just an act of grief for show.

It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

Thinking of a couple experiencing shock and horror imo they would have simply clung to each other not lined up side by side going through these movements. If one was doing it then surely the other would have just comforted not joined in the sequence.
In my opinion it was a distraction to either gain a viewing or to put the police off coming into that room, through courtesy and compassion. They were given a moment even though the police were there. And maybe that moment was sufficient.

candyfloss wrote:

jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

There would be a delay with kate while her brain learns what gerry was doing

jd wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

There would be a delay with kate while her brain learns what gerry was doing

How do you know there wasn't a split second delay?

I don't. But from what I seen from the reconstruction and learnt, they were in sync with each other and kate knew what to do. Even if she was just following, why when seeing her husband suddenly do this weird act did she immediately follow? I think that if it was a spur of the moment thing which she didn't know about, she would have just stood and watched perplexed at what he was doing....not joining him immediately and doing the exact same thing jimo