The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Guest on 19.02.13 15:52

@pennylane wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !
***
But they would only be able to avoid that by withdrawing their libel case[s], isn't it?
By which they signal that they've been suing people for no good reasons at all, however, attempted and nearly managed to crush them in the course of things. Bad P.R.
IMO they find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Yes they are between the devil and the deep blue sea - but a mountain of bad PR would surely be the lesser of two evils, the alternative being a minefield fraught with wholly adverse revelations that they've spent an absolute fortune suppressing.

I think perhaps at the final hurdle they will shamefully use 'the twins well being' angle. The irony will escape them totally.
***
I would sooner refer to an "avalanche" of very bad PR and image-loss. And we all know how dangerous avalanches can be.

I'm afraid you may be right and they'll bring in the twins' welfare. But many, not just us, will think that it's perhaps a bit late to start thinking about them ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by pennylane on 19.02.13 16:20

Châtelaine wrote:
@pennylane wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !
***
But they would only be able to avoid that by withdrawing their libel case[s], isn't it?
By which they signal that they've been suing people for no good reasons at all, however, attempted and nearly managed to crush them in the course of things. Bad P.R.
IMO they find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Yes they are between the devil and the deep blue sea - but a mountain of bad PR would surely be the lesser of two evils, the alternative being a minefield fraught with wholly adverse revelations that they've spent an absolute fortune suppressing.

I think perhaps at the final hurdle they will shamefully use 'the twins well being' angle. The irony will escape them totally.
***
I would sooner refer to an "avalanche" of very bad PR and image-loss. And we all know how dangerous avalanches can be.

I'm afraid you may be right and they'll bring in the twins' welfare. But many, not just us, will think that it's perhaps a bit late to start thinking about them ...

You are so right....an 'avalanche' of very bad PR is a far better descriptive term!

Too bad for them they have tediously worn out the 'Kate's fury, and the hurtful and unhelpful' headlines long ago, and that 'doing a McCann' nowadays only serves to further expose their narcissistic personalities.

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1190
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Woofer on 19.02.13 17:34

@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !

Oh well, pretty pointless us all being here then - what`s the point.

The 'not appearing under oath' may refer to them 'choosing' never to appear under oath.
If operation grange does its job, they will be obliged to appear.
Even under oath, there is no guarantee that there will be any truth spoken.
Perjury to sociopaths is as normal as having marmalade on your toast for breakfast.


I still don`t get it Bobbin - surely no one in this whole world can CHOOSE not to go to court if they`re summoned and CHOOSE not to take an oath. If one is summoned, one has to go, end of.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Guest on 19.02.13 18:05

One thing puzzles me, why was it so important for Kate to raise the alarm at the tapas? Surely from her point of view it would have been easier to either shout or gesture from the apartment.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Nina on 19.02.13 18:17

Finn wrote:One thing puzzles me, why was it so important for Kate to raise the alarm at the tapas? Surely from her point of view it would have been easier to either shout or gesture from the apartment.

And was she silent from the apartment 'till she arrived back at the tapas to raise the alarm? Not a sound of a running screaming woman in the silence of the early May PdL streets.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2696
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by bobbin on 19.02.13 18:18

@Woofer wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !

Oh well, pretty pointless us all being here then - what`s the point.

The 'not appearing under oath' may refer to them 'choosing' never to appear under oath.
If operation grange does its job, they will be obliged to appear.
Even under oath, there is no guarantee that there will be any truth spoken.
Perjury to sociopaths is as normal as having marmalade on your toast for breakfast.


I still don`t get it Bobbin - surely no one in this whole world can CHOOSE not to go to court if they`re summoned and CHOOSE not to take an oath. If one is summoned, one has to go, end of.

That's the point, the difference between continuing with their ever failing libel cases, means they will finish up in a libel court where they can be called and obliged to give the truth for answers.
This is why they are trying like crazy to avoid the court appearances they thought they were in control of, i.e.
libel against Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett.
BUT, both of the superb men are refusing to back down, which is forcing the McCanns to go to libel court, OR take the cost, ignominy and implied guilt of not proceeding with cases which they themselves initiated.
The point about operation grange is it's police directed.
If the police/investigators call for a court case, it will be a legal obligation for them to attend.
Whether they are capable of telling the truth, is a matter that the courts will have to handle.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 128
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Spaniel on 19.02.13 18:20

I've no idea how Pt conducts libel cases, but in England everyone has to appear, and the questioning is tough! Even the Claimant is cross examined.

Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Woofer on 19.02.13 18:26

@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !

Oh well, pretty pointless us all being here then - what`s the point.

The 'not appearing under oath' may refer to them 'choosing' never to appear under oath.
If operation grange does its job, they will be obliged to appear.
Even under oath, there is no guarantee that there will be any truth spoken.
Perjury to sociopaths is as normal as having marmalade on your toast for breakfast.


I still don`t get it Bobbin - surely no one in this whole world can CHOOSE not to go to court if they`re summoned and CHOOSE not to take an oath. If one is summoned, one has to go, end of.

That's the point, the difference between continuing with their ever failing libel cases, means they will finish up in a libel court where they can be called and obliged to give the truth for answers.
This is why they are trying like crazy to avoid the court appearances they thought they were in control of, i.e.
libel against Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett.
BUT, both of the superb men are refusing to back down, which is forcing the McCanns to go to libel court, OR take the cost, ignominy and implied guilt of not proceeding with cases which they themselves initiated.
The point about operation grange is it's police directed.
If the police/investigators call for a court case, it will be a legal obligation for them to attend.
Whether they are capable of telling the truth, is a matter that the courts will have to handle.

Thanks Bobbin, that`s what I thought - it was PM saying `they would NEVER appear in court under oath` that confused me.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by bobbin on 19.02.13 18:37

@Woofer wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !

Oh well, pretty pointless us all being here then - what`s the point.

The 'not appearing under oath' may refer to them 'choosing' never to appear under oath.
If operation grange does its job, they will be obliged to appear.
Even under oath, there is no guarantee that there will be any truth spoken.
Perjury to sociopaths is as normal as having marmalade on your toast for breakfast.


I still don`t get it Bobbin - surely no one in this whole world can CHOOSE not to go to court if they`re summoned and CHOOSE not to take an oath. If one is summoned, one has to go, end of.

That's the point, the difference between continuing with their ever failing libel cases, means they will finish up in a libel court where they can be called and obliged to give the truth for answers.
This is why they are trying like crazy to avoid the court appearances they thought they were in control of, i.e.
libel against Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett.
BUT, both of the superb men are refusing to back down, which is forcing the McCanns to go to libel court, OR take the cost, ignominy and implied guilt of not proceeding with cases which they themselves initiated.
The point about operation grange is it's police directed.
If the police/investigators call for a court case, it will be a legal obligation for them to attend.
Whether they are capable of telling the truth, is a matter that the courts will have to handle.

Thanks Bobbin, that`s what I thought - it was PM saying `they would NEVER appear in court` that confused me.

only PeterMac can answer that but perhaps he had the cynical thought that the cover-uppers would pull strings to stop a court case, as in whitewash for starters.
However, weigh against that, that the public are growing in numbers, the tide of protection that washed over the divine duo has been immasculated somewhat, Rebekah Brooks shown up for what she is, the hacking exposed, Tom Watson now forcing parliament and police to look at paedophilia in the highest places, ripping that tin of worms open, Judge Tugendhat now knowing Enid O'Dowde's work, Tony and Goncalo's books and cases being opened up to the public, the public getting more and more bored by the ever whingeing wind machine of the McCanns, Carter Ruck being humiliated by its own Isobel's affidavit being given falsely under oath, themselves humiliated by needing to wheel out all of their armory and biggest guns to tackle a tiny little pensioner.
The list goes on.
The tide has turned and people like us, all over the world, are making this come about because we too will not take this sitting down.
There is right and wrong. It's in our dna it's that instinctive to maintain it.
Without the deliverance of right over wrong, there is no hope for society and its survival.
Karma is a wider form of legal justice, and it comes, sooner or later.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 128
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Casey5 on 19.02.13 19:22

Bobbin:-
Casey5, I've been trawling back trying to find reference to Jez remarking that her saw Gerry fiddling with the shutters.
I am certain I read it and that it was discussed, but whether it was on JH, 3 arguidos, MM I can't find it.

Bobbin, it was a long time ago but definitely appeared in print, probably on the 3A's but maybe even the Mirror forum. It said that Jez said that he'd passed Gerry fiddling with the shutters and stopped to talk to him.
The remark seems to have vanished, maybe removed from the internet altogether for safety's sake I shouldn't wonder.

Casey5

Posts : 325
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Casey5 on 19.02.13 19:42

Châtelaine Today at 3:15 pm

But they would only be able to avoid that by withdrawing their libel case[s], isn't it?
By
which they signal that they've been suing people for no good reasons at
all, however, attempted and nearly managed to crush them in the course
of things. Bad P.R.
IMO they find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea.

____________________
Chatelaine, from what I've gathered if the McCanns tried to withdraw their libel action they could be guilty of vexatious litigation which according to wiki is a legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

Bring it on.





Casey5

Posts : 325
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by plebgate on 19.02.13 20:49

and I also understand from reading this forum that Mrs. has stated in writing that she wants Mr. A. to feel fear. I hope that document will be included in a court bundle if this ever gets into court.
To admit to wanting somebody to feel fear is absolutely incredible and I believe would not go down well in any court of law in any country. Wow I cannot believe that.

plebgate

Posts : 5552
Reputation : 1292
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by bobbin on 19.02.13 20:56

@Casey5 wrote:Bobbin:-
Casey5, I've been trawling back trying to find reference to Jez remarking that her saw Gerry fiddling with the shutters.
I am certain I read it and that it was discussed, but whether it was on JH, 3 arguidos, MM I can't find it.

Bobbin, it was a long time ago but definitely appeared in print, probably on the 3A's but maybe even the Mirror forum. It said that Jez said that he'd passed Gerry fiddling with the shutters and stopped to talk to him.
The remark seems to have vanished, maybe removed from the internet altogether for safety's sake I shouldn't wonder.

That is just how I remember it and it changes things a lot if it's in the un-released PJ files.
It means the McCann reconstruction is not reflecting the real meeting place, and it makes Jane Tanner's sighting of egg man invalid.
Now I wonder if anyone else has any memories here and did perhaps capture the report/ article.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 128
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Nina on 19.02.13 21:11

@bobbin wrote:
@Casey5 wrote:Bobbin:-
Casey5, I've been trawling back trying to find reference to Jez remarking that her saw Gerry fiddling with the shutters.
I am certain I read it and that it was discussed, but whether it was on JH, 3 arguidos, MM I can't find it.

Bobbin, it was a long time ago but definitely appeared in print, probably on the 3A's but maybe even the Mirror forum. It said that Jez said that he'd passed Gerry fiddling with the shutters and stopped to talk to him.
The remark seems to have vanished, maybe removed from the internet altogether for safety's sake I shouldn't wonder.

That is just how I remember it and it changes things a lot if it's in the un-released PJ files.
It means the McCann reconstruction is not reflecting the real meeting place, and it makes Jane Tanner's sighting of egg man invalid.
Now I wonder if anyone else has any memories here and did perhaps capture the report/ article.

I have searched for it and came across it on a blog. The blog of the prisoner, is he John Hurst? Didn't bring the link here because I didn't think Admin would approve.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2696
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by bobbin on 19.02.13 22:20

@Nina wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Casey5 wrote:Bobbin:-
Casey5, I've been trawling back trying to find reference to Jez remarking that her saw Gerry fiddling with the shutters.
I am certain I read it and that it was discussed, but whether it was on JH, 3 arguidos, MM I can't find it.

Bobbin, it was a long time ago but definitely appeared in print, probably on the 3A's but maybe even the Mirror forum. It said that Jez said that he'd passed Gerry fiddling with the shutters and stopped to talk to him.
The remark seems to have vanished, maybe removed from the internet altogether for safety's sake I shouldn't wonder.

That is just how I remember it and it changes things a lot if it's in the un-released PJ files.
It means the McCann reconstruction is not reflecting the real meeting place, and it makes Jane Tanner's sighting of egg man invalid.
Now I wonder if anyone else has any memories here and did perhaps capture the report/ article.

I have searched for it and came across it on a blog. The blog of the prisoner, is he John Hurst? Didn't bring the link here because I didn't think Admin would approve.

I just googled 'jez wilkins gerry mccann shutters' and am working through it.
Many people remember the story but say it's gone. A Donal MacIntyre apparently wrote about it but I haven't found that yet.
MM and various other sites have discussions on it. Whether it's myth or not, I'm not yet sure. But certainly the original 'fiddling' with shutters has been well discussed.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 128
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Guest on 19.02.13 22:34

Donal MacIntyre has come up with an absolutely bonkers theory on the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwzIxpQgfs

It's very unlikely that he would ever have said anything about Gerry and the shutters. For those who don't know, he and Jez Wilkins are acquainted with each other, having worked together on a documentary called "Britain's Toughest Towns" in 2005.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by bobbin on 19.02.13 22:51

Jean wrote:Donal MacIntyre has come up with an absolutely bonkers theory on the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwzIxpQgfs

It's very unlikely that he would ever have said anything about Gerry and the shutters. For those who don't know, he and Jez Wilkins are acquainted with each other, having worked together on a documentary called "Britain's Toughest Towns" in 2005.
[quote="Jean"]Donal MacIntyre has come up with an absolutely bonkers theory on the case.

yes jean, bonkers, but apparently he's mates with Eamon Holmes, Lorraine Kelly etc.
The
above video is a good 'distraction from the truth' piece.
Now are they
all working together, they are all sycophantically pro-mccann.
Did MacIntyre let slip 'fiddling with the shutters' in the early stages and get
hurriedly pulled back into line.
The above is a very pro-mccann abduction theory, even
down to 'magically having been perpetrated' within the 3 minutes
'window of opportunity' which didn't become evident until quite some time later, after a great number of posters had done intense analysis of statements, cross correlating times given etc. which then showed the impossible 3 minute gap.
Now is this a pre-empting or attempt to back-fill. The McCanns have lied themselves into a three minute moment and now have to have a credible explanation, thus the idiotic, 2 people passing Maddie out of the apartment etc.
The earliest reports and statements are very interesting to go back to, especially when they've been whooshed.

bobbin

Posts : 2031
Reputation : 128
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Woofer on 19.02.13 23:18

[quote="]Thanks Bobbin, that`s what I thought - it was PM saying `they would NEVER appear in court` that confused me.[/quote]

only PeterMac can answer that but perhaps he had the cynical thought that the cover-uppers would pull strings to stop a court case, as in whitewash for starters.
However, weigh against that, that the public are growing in numbers, the tide of protection that washed over the divine duo has been immasculated somewhat, Rebekah Brooks shown up for what she is, the hacking exposed, Tom Watson now forcing parliament and police to look at paedophilia in the highest places, ripping that tin of worms open, Judge Tugendhat now knowing Enid O'Dowde's work, Tony and Goncalo's books and cases being opened up to the public, the public getting more and more bored by the ever whingeing wind machine of the McCanns, Carter Ruck being humiliated by its own Isobel's affidavit being given falsely under oath, themselves humiliated by needing to wheel out all of their armory and biggest guns to tackle a tiny little pensioner.
The list goes on.
The tide has turned and people like us, all over the world, are making this come about because we too will not take this sitting down.
There is right and wrong. It's in our dna it's that instinctive to maintain it.
Without the deliverance of right over wrong, there is no hope for society and its survival.
Karma is a wider form of legal justice, and it comes, sooner or later.[/quote]

Aah, thanks Bobbin, your optimism has cheered me up.

Our world is full of corruption and its hard to stay positive sometimes.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by PeterMac on 20.02.13 7:55

@Woofer wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Which is why they will NEVER appear in court, under oath !
Oh well, pretty pointless us all being here then - what`s the point.
The 'not appearing under oath' may refer to them 'choosing' never to appear under oath.
If operation grange does its job, they will be obliged to appear.
Even under oath, there is no guarantee that there will be any truth spoken.
Perjury to sociopaths is as normal as having marmalade on your toast for breakfast.
I still don`t get it Bobbin - surely no one in this whole world can CHOOSE not to go to court if they`re summoned and CHOOSE not to take an oath. If one is summoned, one has to go, end of.

I meant "of their own volition". They will never appear in a libel court and volunteer themselves for cross examination.
Even it SY can get them to a criminal court, charged with something, they still have the right not to go into the box and give evidence.
No decent lawyer would let them. And they have got a whole heap of decent lawyers.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Guest on 20.02.13 8:24

My definition of "decent" is the old-fashioned one of "conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behaviour".

It definitely cannot be applied to a certain firm of solicitors or their clients!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by tigger on 22.02.13 8:16

Just came across a couple of posts in the Dan and car topic on Chaplin's Bar.

It's a useful reference to place here.

Kate and Gerry asked the policeman around 2-3 am on the 4th if he could tell them where the church was as they wanted to pray.
A thin excuse if I've ever heard one. One can walk and talk, one can pray and search - that imo is almost a universal response to the situation they were in.

Your child is missing, within an hour you've already broadcast far and wide that she's been taken by paedophiles or a paedophile gang.
Surely it's more likely that she's wandered off.

Whichever scenario you believe, the response of most people would be to search, shout her name and pray all the time whilst you are doing that.
For goodness sake, most people do that when a pet is missing.
But the mcCanns took time to delete calls from their mobiles and spent (after the PJ arrived) a considerable time on the phone. Only after that did they ask where the church was so that they could pray.

Now imo that had two functions:
should Chaplins ever be mentioned, they could say they didn't even know where it was since they had to ask where the church was - Chaplins being virtually next to it - and it would get an enormous vote of sympathy of all deeply religious people who might take the wish to visit a church as proof of innocence and piety.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by russiandoll on 22.02.13 9:49

The McCanns went to the beach before 3rd May. The beach is below the area where the church is located. From the holiday complex would the direct route, the one proabably taken by the family, have not put the church in sight, considering its height in relation to other buildings, even if they did not pass it en route?
If this is the case there was no need to ask for directions.

____________________



             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 : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by tigger on 22.02.13 10:14

@russiandoll wrote:The McCanns went to the beach before 3rd May. The beach is below the area where the church is located. From the holiday complex would the direct route, the one proabably taken by the family, have not put the church in sight, considering its height in relation to other buildings, even if they did not pass it en route?
If this is the case there was no need to ask for directions.

But in addition to the above two benefits of asking for the church it emphasises the 'fact' that they didn't know PdL at all. So Gerry could not have been seen by the Smiths either. Three benefits.
In addition to that I'm convinced the pool photo was taken the previous year so that might be even more reason to claim that PdL was unknown territory.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Trainer on 22.02.13 12:02

@tigger wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:The McCanns went to the beach before 3rd May. The beach is below the area where the church is located. From the holiday complex would the direct route, the one proabably taken by the family, have not put the church in sight, considering its height in relation to other buildings, even if they did not pass it en route?
If this is the case there was no need to ask for directions.

But in addition to the above two benefits of asking for the church it emphasises the 'fact' that they didn't know PdL at all. So Gerry could not have been seen by the Smiths either. Three benefits.
In addition to that I'm convinced the pool photo was taken the previous year so that might be even more reason to claim that PdL was unknown territory.

Or they needed to head in that direction but the police were present , it may have looked suspicious or police could go with them, hence "where's the church?",the police point them in the direction they wanted to go, "we want to pray" = don't come with us this is private.

Trainer

Posts : 46
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-26
Location : Uk

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: pre-emptive remarks and stage setting

Post by Nina on 22.02.13 14:02

@Trainer wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:The McCanns went to the beach before 3rd May. The beach is below the area where the church is located. From the holiday complex would the direct route, the one proabably taken by the family, have not put the church in sight, considering its height in relation to other buildings, even if they did not pass it en route?
If this is the case there was no need to ask for directions.

But in addition to the above two benefits of asking for the church it emphasises the 'fact' that they didn't know PdL at all. So Gerry could not have been seen by the Smiths either. Three benefits.
In addition to that I'm convinced the pool photo was taken the previous year so that might be even more reason to claim that PdL was unknown territory.

Or they needed to head in that direction but the police were present , it may have looked suspicious or police could go with them, hence "where's the church?",the police point them in the direction they wanted to go, "we want to pray" = don't come with us this is private.

How near to the church is the praiso restaurant?spl as the Tapas crew, minus the McCanns were there on the afternoon of the 3rd and Kate passed, jogging, and waved, so if it is in the area of the church she would know where it is.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2696
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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