australian vid

jd wrote:I think you would be mentally unbalanced to do this, it is not normal behaviour

gerry mccann can bleat on about dining in your back garden but this is not the point.....can the children be be watched over is the only factor, which very clearly they could not be in the slightest for the larger part of each evening from the Tapas Bar

PeterMac wrote:Interesting video. Thank you for the link
They mention that there were TWO important sightings, but then only go into detail of the JT one. And then change the subject.
Gerry's display when he goes through the allegations of accident and then hiding / disposal of the body is wonderful, Tourettes twitches, wiggling his head around, not looking at the interviewer. Why not just say "It is simply not correct" and leave it at that ?

But then look at the interviewer who is seen seated at the book launch at 13:37 to 13:42
Her face tells a story.
And that story IMHO is that she doesn't believe them.
(You can fast forward by dragging the little time tab thing along the bottom.)

tuom wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Interesting video. Thank you for the link
They mention that there were TWO important sightings, but then only go into detail of the JT one. And then change the subject.
Gerry's display when he goes through the allegations of accident and then hiding / disposal of the body is wonderful, Tourettes twitches, wiggling his head around, not looking at the interviewer. Why not just say "It is simply not correct" and leave it at that ?

But then look at the interviewer who is seen seated at the book launch at 13:37 to 13:42
Her face tells a story.
And that story IMHO is that she doesn't believe them.
(You can fast forward by dragging the little time tab thing along the bottom.)

My thoughts exactly re the interviewer , that is some look !!!!

Nina wrote:

tuom wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Interesting video. Thank you for the link
They mention that there were TWO important sightings, but then only go into detail of the JT one. And then change the subject.
Gerry's display when he goes through the allegations of accident and then hiding / disposal of the body is wonderful, Tourettes twitches, wiggling his head around, not looking at the interviewer. Why not just say "It is simply not correct" and leave it at that ?

But then look at the interviewer who is seen seated at the book launch at 13:37 to 13:42
Her face tells a story.
And that story IMHO is that she doesn't believe them.
(You can fast forward by dragging the little time tab thing along the bottom.)

My thoughts exactly re the interviewer , that is some look !!!!

For some reason I cannot get that video to play.
Admin do we have a thread where all these video links are stored?

candyfloss wrote:

Nina wrote:

tuom wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Interesting video. Thank you for the link
They mention that there were TWO important sightings, but then only go into detail of the JT one. And then change the subject.
Gerry's display when he goes through the allegations of accident and then hiding / disposal of the body is wonderful, Tourettes twitches, wiggling his head around, not looking at the interviewer. Why not just say "It is simply not correct" and leave it at that ?

But then look at the interviewer who is seen seated at the book launch at 13:37 to 13:42
Her face tells a story.
And that story IMHO is that she doesn't believe them.
(You can fast forward by dragging the little time tab thing along the bottom.)

My thoughts exactly re the interviewer , that is some look !!!!

For some reason I cannot get that video to play.
Admin do we have a thread where all these video links are stored?

No, don't think we have Nina. If someone wants to compile a few and start a thread perhaps. Admin could maybe make it a sticky.

friedtomatoes wrote:kate should make up her mind and not lie about the curtains, which of the four versions is correct



What's with all the usage of the word cow in the last few posts friedtomatoes. I've noted it several times, including the thread I deleted in which you use the same word plus a swear word. There is really no need for this.

friedtomatoes wrote:I dont mind volunteering for this as will have some spare time shortly, but would like some ideas on how to present it, date order is probably the best?

PeterMac wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:I dont mind volunteering for this as will have some spare time shortly, but would like some ideas on how to present it, date order is probably the best?

I think this is a good idea, as the volume is beginning to overwhelm.
Date is obviously one possible criterion, but possibly not very helpful if we are trying to search

I suggest a very short description might be of more use - such as
• Kate admits not searching
* Gerry smiles after interview finishes
• whoosh clunk
• Kennedy admits fund for legal costs

If they were also numbered we could simply refer to the number rather than having to copy and paste the link every time

And on that note, perhaps a system of
KM 1, 2, 3 4 etc where it is only her
then
GM 1, 2, 3, 4 only him
KGM for both
JT
and so on

Documentaries in a different category from clips from interviews, though I realise that there is overlap.
And sequences prepared by others - Hidihi, Spudgun etc to have their own lists.

Not quite so easy to manage, but I think it will be well worth it. The Australian one was an eye opener for me, I had read the transcript but never seen QM writhing and wriggling on the end of the hook like that.

YouTube is an obvious place to start.
And then as many people as possible should use "Keepvid" to store them, in case of whooshing.

Good luck. It shouldn't take more than a month !

candyfloss wrote:

Ribisl and friedtomatoes have very kindly volunteered to undertake this mamoth task[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It will be posted in the Research Library, and will take a bit of time to finish. It will be a great help to find videos etc, and therefore not for general discussion, and I would ask that members do not post on that thread, and when finished it will be locked. Thanks.

sammyc wrote:When Gerry is describing the famous last photo by the pool 2 minutes into the video, does he say Madeleine 'sitting by the pool with myself....'? Why doesn't he mention Amelie being there? Why not say 'Madeleine with her sister and myself' or 'me and my two incredibly beautiful daughters'?

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Ribisl and friedtomatoes have very kindly volunteered to undertake this mamoth task[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It will be posted in the Research Library, and will take a bit of time to finish. It will be a great help to find videos etc, and therefore not for general discussion, and I would ask that members do not post on that thread, and when finished it will be locked. Thanks.

Thank you Candyfloss. Yes, it's quite a challenge, isn't it?
We'd like to call for half a dozen volunteers to help us mine the data. Anybody interested in helping, please PM me. Thanks

monkey mind wrote:

Quote GM “It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

Well IF it was an accident, only you can answer that. But if Eddie and Keela are right that opens up another possibility, and in that instance, the question answers itself.....

monkey mind wrote:Quote "No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search.”

I think one of the reasons he is so uncomfortable here is that in actual fact he is probably telling the truth somewhat but that by necessity must carry a hidden truth behind it. For instance, he would be entirely happy as we know to discuss abduction but the interviewer hit him between the eyes so he resorted to the next safe level, accident whilst they were out dining. He knows very well - as do we - that if an accident happened whilst they were at dinner there was no time for them or their friends, and by that I mean known friends the T7 to have hidden her. But if like me, you are willing to consider the evidence of Eddie and Keela, somebody died in that apartment and the body had to have remained there a number of hours in more than one place, somebody that we have no record of, that leaves the only other missing person. Their evidence tells us that if that scent of cadaverine relates to M, and it’s not unreasonable to infer this considering where else they alerted to, then she must have died earlier in the day or even much earlier in the week. If one accepts the evidence of E and K it can’t be any other way. It’s not good enough to just dismiss their evidence out of hand as stupidity for a treat or misguidance by the handler. The FBI seem to regard these type of dogs very highly, and if you had previously witnessed their proven worth cadavers, explosives, whatever, why wouldn’t you. So if something happened earlier in the day or week sure as night follows day G and K must be fully aware of it must they not? Ergo, if Eddie and Keela are right, the notion of an abductor can be nothing more than subterfuge, an alibi.

Quote GM “It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

Well IF it was an accident, only you can answer that. But if Eddie and Keela are right that opens up another possibility, and in that instance, the question answers itself.....

Ribisl wrote:

monkey mind wrote:

Quote GM “It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

Well IF it was an accident, only you can answer that. But if Eddie and Keela are right that opens up another possibility, and in that instance, the question answers itself.....

Or if the accident happened in their absence, then the implied child neglect comes into the equation. And that could have been sufficient in their reasoning for concealing the body.

monkey mind wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

monkey mind wrote:

Quote GM “It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

Well IF it was an accident, only you can answer that. But if Eddie and Keela are right that opens up another possibility, and in that instance, the question answers itself.....

Or if the accident happened in their absence, then the implied child neglect comes into the equation. And that could have been sufficient in their reasoning for concealing the body.

For an *accident* to have happened in their absence according to the evidence we have would have had to have been between when they arrived at the Tapas times vary on this but could be as late as almost 9pm, to when K raised the alarm. A little over an hour. The scent of cadaverine takes longer than that to develop. And G checked on them after 9pm, so less than an hour. So if you choose to believe the dogs, the accident can’t have happened in their absence. Not on the 3rd anyway.