Re: confession with a Catholic priest

by Guest 02.12.09 19:01

LadyBear wrote:Well squeaky is ok:) , but when one grins at a question that a interveiwer puts to one, and does it on more than one occasion well it annoys me!!!!

It's borne of the same thing though, unease and nervousness.

Speaking on tv about the love one has for their child currently abducted, possibly dead, is not exactly something many people have practice in.

Thankfully.

by Guest 02.12.09 19:01

LadyBear wrote:Sabot , but their was no evidence of a Abduction?

What evidence would you expect, a calling card?

by Guest 02.12.09 19:26

Clarity:) now come on , their were no forensics at all, not one hair from the would be Abductors head!!!! Or fibres from his clothes or foot prints. Nothing!!
And Madeleines nanan in scotland did say, Madeleine would have screamed her head off with a stranger!!! Taking a child out into the cold night air, through a window and having all that movement being taken up onto a windowsill .And lowered down and out side and she never awoke .And i suppose you are going to say this is normaL, for 3 year olds to sleep through all that.

by Guest 02.12.09 19:34

LadyBear wrote:Clarity:) now come on , their were no forensics at all, not one hair from the would be Abductors head!!!! Or fibres from his clothes or foot prints. Nothing!!
And Madeleines nanan in scotland did say, Madeleine would have screamed her head off with a stranger!!! Taking a child out into the cold night air, through a window and having all that movement being taken up onto a windowsill .And lowered down and out side and she never awoke .And i suppose you are going to say this is normaL, for 3 year olds to sleep through all that.

Was it raining or muddy, did the abductor brush their hair, did they smear their prints around (of course there was some prints that could not be matched to known samples) It's a genuine question what evidence would you expect an abductor to leave behind, what do they usually leave behind to lead to their apprehension? sadly it is rare these days for a smart individual to leave evidence behind particularly when they are only entering to pick up a child and leave (rather than rummaging through drawers and cupboards etc), rather depressingly it is often the evidence they leave behind on the victim that is most likely to identify them, rather then the crime scene itself.

Have you never carried a sleeping child from bed to car, from car to bed etc happens daily and rarely awakens said sleeping child.

I don't know if she was passed through a window though, there are many reasons for why a window would be open without it being assumed that it was to pass madeleine.

by Guest 02.12.09 19:38

clarity i do believe that was stated , Madeleine was passed through the window , but ill check it was a fact rather than hearsay?

by Guest 02.12.09 19:59

LadyBear wrote:Clarity:) now come on , their were no forensics at all, not one hair from the would be Abductors head!!!! Or fibres from his clothes or foot prints. Nothing!!
And Madeleines nanan in scotland did say, Madeleine would have screamed her head off with a stranger!!! Taking a child out into the cold night air, through a window and having all that movement being taken up onto a windowsill .And lowered down and out side and she never awoke .And i suppose you are going to say this is normaL, for 3 year olds to sleep through all that.

Oh God. We don't have to go through all of this again, do we?

by Guest 02.12.09 20:02

LadyBear wrote:clarity i do believe that was stated , Madeleine was passed through the window , but ill check it was a fact rather than hearsay?

No one can know this unless they were there. It doesn't matter who might have assumed it. I should have thought that this was obvious.

by Guest 02.12.09 20:06

One Version of events , from a respected Newspaper The Times . Kate and Gerry McCann told police that the window shutter in Madeleine’s bedroom, which could not been seen from the restaurant, had been forced open.

Police tests showed the heavy metal shutter had not been forced up from the outside, so must have been pulled open from inside the room. Assuming that the abductor entered through the apartment’s unlocked patio windows, why would he or she not leave by the same way or the use the front door?

Or was the window opened to make it appear as if an intruder had used it to enter the bedroom?

by Guest 02.12.09 20:15

Note how consistent the stories are that an 'abductor' gained access to a locked apartment by breaking open the shutter on the bedroom window and escaping by the front door.

The story changed later when it became clear the shutters on the window had not been forced, were not damaged in any way and could only be opened from inside the apartment.

From that point, the McCanns became convinced that an 'abductor' had entered through 'open' patio doors and escaped through the open shuttered window.

Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, is eventually forced to admit that "There was no evidence of a break-in".

by Guest 02.12.09 20:16

Sabot nothing is Obviouse in this case!

by Guest 02.12.09 21:10

LadyBear wrote:Sabot nothing is Obviouse in this case!

I said it was obvious that no one other than the abductor could know if Madeleine was passed through the window.

That is obvious.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.12.09 21:21

clarity wrote:I don't know if she was passed through a window though, there are many reasons for why a window would be open without it being assumed that it was to pass Madeleine.

Hmmm. One of the possibilties is that Dr Kate McCann opened it - after all, only her fingerprints were on the window frame - in order to...[CARTER-RUCK: Careful!]

[Remainder of posting deleted]

by **Jill Havern** 02.12.09 21:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
clarity wrote:I don't know if she was passed through a window though, there are many reasons for why a window would be open without it being assumed that it was to pass Madeleine.
Hmmm. One of the possibilties is that Dr Kate McCann opened it - after all, only her fingerprints were on the window frame - in order to...[CARTER-RUCK: Careful!]

[Remainder of posting deleted]

by MaryB 02.12.09 21:34

Would a devout catholic agree to IVF. Which is strictly against the rules and teaching of the Catholic church.

by Guest 02.12.09 22:20

Sabot, I said it was obvious that no one other than the abductor could know if Madeleine was passed through the window.

And i am saying supposing their was no Abductor , and the window situation never happened .Their is no proof of that is their? So to me it isnt Obvious

by Guest 02.12.09 22:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
clarity wrote:I don't know if she was passed through a window though, there are many reasons for why a window would be open without it being assumed that it was to pass Madeleine.
Hmmm. One of the possibilties is that Dr Kate McCann opened it - after all, only her fingerprints were on the window frame - in order to...[CARTER-RUCK: Careful!]

[Remainder of posting deleted]

Maybe she opened it to see where her daughter was.

by scrafen 03.12.09 0:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hmmm. One of the possibilties is that Dr Kate McCann opened it - after all, only her fingerprints were on the window frame - in order to...[CARTER-RUCK: Careful!]

[Remainder of posting deleted]

someone must have closed the window that night in the groundfloor apartment, before they left it ?

who was this ?
are the persons fingerprints on the window (frame/handle) ?
...or was the window still open, when the forensics arrived ?...

by Guest 03.12.09 9:15

The abductor could have opened the window to pass Madeleine through. Remember that the child seen being carried had her head the opposite way to having been picked up out of bed.

The abductor could have opened the window as a means of escape if he became trapped in the bedroom by someone checking on the children.

by Guest 03.12.09 10:11

LadyBear wrote:clarity i do believe that was stated , Madeleine was passed through the window , but ill check it was a fact rather than hearsay?

Stated by whom, no-one witnessed it, there were 3 entrances and exits and no hard evidence as to which one was used.

by Guest 03.12.09 10:14

LadyBear wrote:One Version of events , from a respected Newspaper The Times . Kate and Gerry McCann told police that the window shutter in Madeleine’s bedroom, which could not been seen from the restaurant, had been forced open.

Police tests showed the heavy metal shutter had not been forced up from the outside, so must have been pulled open from inside the room. Assuming that the abductor entered through the apartment’s unlocked patio windows, why would he or she not leave by the same way or the use the front door?

Or was the window opened to make it appear as if an intruder had used it to enter the bedroom?

Newspapers are not evidence, newspapers are businesses, in the business of sellings news, stories and sometimes faux outrage, the only evidence we need to worry about is the statements, the witnesses, the forensics etc

Not what some journo thinks happened. This has been a real problem for a few observers of this case on forums, a tendancy to assume that newspapers have access to the truth.

by littlepixie 03.12.09 20:28

[quote="Sabot"]

LadyBear wrote:Sabot, :) that is how you might judge me from statements , but on a pc you cannot get voice intonation and theirfore that makes it really hard to judge a person from their written context.
And i still think Gerry is controlling!!!, and grins a awful lot, thats my opinion from seeing him giving interveiws[/quote

Under stress from the abduction of a child is not exactly easy you know. What do you want him to do, go around in misery the whole time?

I hope he is in control. He wouldn't be much of a man if he wasn't.

He isnt much of a man, he abandoned his babies and one of them met her fate.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.12.09 22:40

murat_fan wrote:Maybe she opened it to see where her daughter was.

NO!

She knew instantly, the moment she entered the room, with complete certainty, that Madeleine had been abducted.

The window was open and the curtains were blowing

Don't you remember all this, murat_fan?

That rules out your theory, doesn't it?

by Guest 03.12.09 22:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Maybe she opened it to see where her daughter was.
NO!

She knew instantly, the moment she entered the room, with complete certainty, that Madeleine had been abducted.

The window was open and the curtains were blowing

Don't you remember all this, murat_fan?

That rules out your theory, doesn't it?

Can you show me the link that says that please Bennett. And not a link from Amaral.

by Guest 03.12.09 23:04

Murat, if you can find the self made Documentary Gerry made , and in fact he even controlled that in parts , telling Jane Tanner what she saw, by that i mean where he was allegedly stood!!!!!!!!. The one where it was a reconstruction of sorts.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.12.09 23:05

murat_fan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Maybe she opened it to see where her daughter was.
NO!

She knew instantly, the moment she entered the room, with complete certainty, that Madeleine had been abducted.

The window was open and the curtains were blowing

Don't you remember all this, murat_fan?

That rules out your theory, doesn't it?

Can you show me the link that says that please Bennett. And not a link from Amaral.

What do you want?

A quote from Dr Kate McCann herself?

All right, here's just one:

Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.'

Jane Hill interview, BBC TV, June 2007