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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

WHY are the McCanns now saying?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by jeanmonroe on 25.07.13 12:36

WHY are Kate McCann and Gerry McCann BOTH now saying that 'we won't know and we don't know what happened to Madeleine"?

They have been telling the whole world since 10pm May 3rd 2007 that Madeleine has been 'abducted"

WHY the very sudden change to 'we don't know what happened'?

Gerry McCann on daybreak 'interview' didn't mention the words 'abducted or abduction' once!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Lostfridge on 25.07.13 12:59

@jeanmonroe wrote:WHY are Kate McCann and Gerry McCann BOTH now saying that 'we won't know and we don't know what happened to Madeleine"?

They have been telling the whole world since 10pm May 3rd 2007 that Madeleine has been 'abducted"

WHY the very sudden change to 'we don't know what happened'?

Gerry McCann on daybreak 'interview' didn't mention the words 'abducted or abduction' once!

Perhaps hes just been well briefed by SY on their plans for the off-white wash.

Lostfridge

Posts : 149
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by PeterMac on 25.07.13 13:33

@jeanmonroe wrote:WHY are Kate McCann and Gerry McCann BOTH now saying that 'we won't know and we don't know what happened to Madeleine"?
They have been telling the whole world since 10pm May 3rd 2007 that Madeleine has been 'abducted"
WHY the very sudden change to 'we don't know what happened'?
Gerry McCann on daybreak 'interview' didn't mention the words 'abducted or abduction' once!

If they ARE now saying that, then can someone re-visit the case McCann - v - Bennett, and the forthcoming McCann - v- Amaral

Hello Kevin !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Guest on 25.07.13 13:54

It's possible that they mean they don't know what happened after Madeleine was taken by the smelly, greasy, etc stranger who had been spying on them.

If however they really do mean that they don't know if she was abducted, it really is a turnaround on as grand a scale as the coloboma disappearing into insignificance.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by jeanmonroe on 25.07.13 13:54

@PeterMac wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:WHY are Kate McCann and Gerry McCann BOTH now saying that 'we won't know and we don't know what happened to Madeleine"?
They have been telling the whole world since 10pm May 3rd 2007 that Madeleine has been 'abducted"
WHY the very sudden change to 'we don't know what happened'?
Gerry McCann on daybreak 'interview' didn't mention the words 'abducted or abduction' once!

If they ARE now saying that, then can someone re-visit the case McCann - v - Bennett, and the forthcoming McCann - v- Amaral

Hello Kevin !

GM Daybreak 'interview'
"and unfortunately for us I think the biggest problem is going to be WE WON'T KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED to Madeleine until we find who is responsible."
KM SKY 'interview'
1st May 2013
ADAM BOULTON: "your feeling is what on what you know on, as to her disappearance, WHAT HAPPENED do you think?"
KATE MCCANN: (verbatim) "well WE STILL DON'T KNOW, all we know she was y'know she was taken from us, erm"

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by jeanmonroe on 25.07.13 14:08

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It's possible that they mean they don't know what happened after Madeleine was taken by the smelly, greasy, etc stranger who had been spying on them.

If however they really do mean that they don't know if she was abducted, it really is a turnaround on as grand a scale as the coloboma disappearing into insignificance.

There can be absolutely no ambiguities in the McCanns 'version' of events.
They took a man to court, with possible imprisonment, as an outcome!

If we start introducing 'possible' or 'possibilities' then the whole thing blows apart!
EGs:
Is it 'possible' that there was no abduction and that the parents simulated one?
Is it 'possible' that the parents lied to the investigating police?
Is it 'impossible' that the parents were not involved in a childs 'disappearance'?
etc.etc.

We can be wrong a thousand times but the McCanns cannot be wrong ONCE!

But they certainly appear to be 'back tracking' on various things they have stated in public.

"Abduction, abduction ABDUCTION! they screamed"

NOW it's 'erm, we don't know"

SY getting 'closer' to the truth?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Hobs on 25.07.13 15:06

KATE MCCANN: (verbatim) "well WE STILL DON'T KNOW, all we know she was y'know she was taken from us, erm

 Oh dearie dear another case of open mouth insert feet kate.

Well is used  to buy time, allowing the subject to think of a response.

We indicates shared guilt or shared knowledge.

All we know when used in a sentence indicates the subject wants to end the topic making it sensitive.

 You know/ y'know is used to convince and convey.
I would have to see if this is a regular occurrance and where it appears as well as where is doesn't appear.
It is used to convince the listener of the veracity of what is being said, the listener doesn't know, the listener wants to know  what happened and so on not be asked to assume.

Notice we have the word She instead of Madeleine and she is repeated twices making it sensitive.

What is kate's definition of TAKEN?

She doesn't use the word we expect which is abducted or kidnapped, why taken?
Taken  has several meanings, in this case taken as in removed?, taken as in abducted? or taken as in dead.

We often hears the word taken in relation to a death especially in an unexpected death or death of a child examples such as taken from this world too soon, taken by god and so on.

Why do we have a change in language to taken rather than their normal abducted?

A change is language is a change in reality, if nothing is different in what occured what has prompted the change in language?

Also note the word know is repeated 3 times making it sensitive, why is knowing sensitive, what does she know?

What also catches my eye is the use of the words we and us indicating sharing.

What is expected is the mom will speak for herself in relation to a missing child, it is close and personal to her, her maternal instincts will be to the fore, she calls out to her child.
This is something we see very little of in kate's statements.
Very rarely does she use I (apart from when the laws of physics were smashed when she entered the apartment to find Maddie 'n missing') it is all we, we, us.

We do not hear her pleading to the abductor or calling out to her daughter and when we have it has been scripted.
There is no anger towards the abductor, far from it , she is quite happy to forgive them. However, her rage is aimed at  LE and those who question  their version  of events, they cannot and must not be forgiven, they must be sued , derided, demeaned and defamed.

Her priority is not Maddie, it never was, her priority is herself and gerry.

 Why is she now telling us they still don't know when for 6 years they have been telling the world Maddie was abducted, which is it abduction or something else?
Why the minimising language now the case in being investigated by SY?

They cannot now claim 3rd world policing/ dodgy investigators etc, they now have what they have been allegedly demanding, an investigation.
Perhaps they didn't think it would go this far.
What can they say now if SY ask those 48 questions or say a reconstruction must be done to see who was where and when and the timings.
To refuse will expose them as the fibbers they are regarding co-operation and to  do as asked will reveal all the discrepensies.

 The brain knows what it knows and wants to tell what it knows.

Lying is stressful and people will beat about the bushes and spin wildly in order to avoid saying anything which can lead to the truth, lying by ommision or even to falsifying a reality.

Keep talking kate and gerry, we can see the truth behind the lies and ommissions

Hobs

Posts : 715
Reputation : 288
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by jeanmonroe on 25.07.13 15:25

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It's possible that they mean they don't know what happened after Madeleine was taken by the smelly, greasy, etc stranger who had been spying on them.

If however they really do mean that they don't know if she was abducted, it really is a turnaround on as grand a scale as the coloboma disappearing into insignificance.

Oh my word!

Madeleines coloboma has 'disappeared'?

SET UP A FUND!
GET 30 OF THE SCOTLAND YARDS FINEST IN TO INVESTIGATE!
CAMERON, GET TO THE TAXPAYERS BANK AND WITHDRAW £5 MILLION TO FUND THE SEARCH FOR THE MISSING COLOBOMA!
BHH, ORGANISE A BALLOON LAUNCH, TO RAISE FUNDS!
PRINT A PICTURE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF ALL NI'S PAPERS!

HURRY, HURRY, BEFORE THE COLOBOMA IS SPIRITED AWAY TO THE LAWLESS VILLAGES WHERE THE OUTLAWS LIVE!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Cristobell on 25.07.13 15:28

Love your posts Hobs :)

They are both now saying that they don't know what happened to Madeleine.  Does this mean that Jane Tanner's evidence has been discounted?

Cristobell

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by jeanmonroe on 25.07.13 15:33

Hobs:
"Her priority is not Maddie, it never was, her priority is herself and gerry."
_________________________________________________________________________

CP – The child’s parents allege that there are several leads that were not followed. Do you think the reopening of the process is possible?

GA – The child’s parents talk about pseudo leads, that are always related to the abduction theory. I remind you that they “demanded” the archiving of the process, in 2008, when they were arguidos, merely to defend their image. They are not interested in the reopening of the process or of the investigation, where all hypotheses remain open, from a voluntary disappearance up to homicide, like the Public Ministry mentions in the archiving dispatch. They are only interested in the defence of their image.
_______________________________

YOU must be a mind reader!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by PEANUT66 on 25.07.13 18:49

Hobs...Have been reading this forum for time and a day...Your posts are spot on...Kudos to you

PEANUT66

Posts : 46
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2013-07-04
Location : Oxford

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Guest on 25.07.13 19:57

Yes, Hobs thumbup , statement analysis learned me a lot on top of life's experiences.
It's always there in plain sight : the lie - and the mind don't like it. Hence the "Freudian" slips of the tongue ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by lj on 25.07.13 20:21

@jeanmonroe wrote:Hobs:
"Her priority is not Maddie, it never was, her priority is herself and gerry."
_________________________________________________________________________

CP – The child’s parents allege that there are several leads that were not followed. Do you think the reopening of the process is possible?

GA – The child’s parents talk about pseudo leads, that are always related to the abduction theory. I remind you that they “demanded” the archiving of the process, in 2008, when they were arguidos, merely to defend their image. They are not interested in the reopening of the process or of the investigation, where all hypotheses remain open, from a voluntary disappearance up to homicide, like the Public Ministry mentions in the archiving dispatch. They are only interested in the defence of their image.
_______________________________

YOU must be a mind reader!

Do they really want to go to court and have Dr. Amaral speak.
Is there anyone in the media or pro-camp who knows they themselves caused the case to be closed?

I can't wait for that trial to start. I predict the media, if present at all, will soon leave through the backdoor.


____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by MRNOODLES on 26.07.13 0:31

I like the analysis Hobs. From time to time I've thought KM's choice of words odd without putting my finger on it.  You just hit the spot for me clapping1

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by joyce1938 on 26.07.13 9:21

I think I read that the macs do not have to go to the court at all ,just be represented.I just doubt they will submit to any questions at all ,their lawyer would not allow it to happen ,I dnot know for sure I am not a legal ,just in my estimation .  I do hope this case with mr amarel will soon conclude in a good way for him ,he cant speak at this time I feel . joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 805
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 77
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by russiandoll on 26.07.13 13:07

I don't see anything strange in their saying they do not know what happened to Madeleine. In the context of the story which they have presented to the world, one of abduction, it is a rational thing to say imo.
They both claim to have seen Maddie the evening of 3rd May, and expected to see her again. They did not. On one of their checks she was not there and they do not know what happened to her after she was last seen by her father, apart from that she was taken by a stranger. They know that.
 After she was taken, they are in the dark as to exactly how, by whom , her ultimate destination and what her life has been like since then.
 That imo is all that they meant.

____________________



             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: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by celtclogs on 26.07.13 13:16

goodpost  Hobs bravo clapping1 clapping1

celtclogs

Posts : 78
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Woburn_exile on 26.07.13 17:01

Spot on hobs, is it time to bring in the real BIG BOYS of investigation..goodpost goodpost goodpost howdy howdy

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Hobs on 26.07.13 17:14

@russiandoll wrote:I don't see anything strange in their saying they do not know what happened to Madeleine. In the context of the story which they have presented to the world, one of abduction, it is a rational thing to say imo.
They both claim to have seen Maddie the evening of 3rd May, and expected to see her again. They did not. On one of their checks she was not there and they do not know what happened to her after she was last seen by her father, apart from that she was taken by a stranger. They know that.
 After she was taken, they are in the dark as to exactly how, by whom , her ultimate destination and what her life has been like since then.
 That imo is all that they meant.

 Hi Russian Doll ( i remember playing with one od those when i was at infant school)

With statement analysis i do not interpret what i think they meant i look only at the words they use.

If i interpret what i think they meant i am in effect analysing myself and not the subject.

The words spoken by the subject are spoken a microsecond after being thought.

The words spoken reflect what is on the subjects mind at that specific moment in time.

What stands out immediately is she uses the word taken and not the words abducted or kidnapped.

Abducted or kidnapped is what they have been telling the world is what happened to Madeleine, so much so they have and are suing anyone who says or believes otherwise.

Why is there a change in language when there is no change in reality?

Why taken and not abducted?

What is kate's definiton of taken in that specific sentence, how does it differ from abducted or kidnapped.

Why taken and not disappeared or vanished given she told us they still don't know what happened to Madeleine.

Unlikely though it is, it could have been possible for Madeleine to walk out the apartment, especially since there is not one iota of forensic evidence to indicate an abduction.

No matter how we try to come up with a plausible explanation for what happened in the apartment to Madeleine, we cannot discount the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs.
Those are the elephants in the living room.

They wanted search dogs and believed them when they followed a scent for a short distance, why is the reaction of a live search dog more trustworthy than that of blood and cadaver dogs with a 100% record?

They are doctors, they know all about DNA and body fluids, they know about death and it's smell ( once you have smelled death you never forget, it also permeates everything it comes in contact with)

They had to resort to stuff and nonsense about it  disappearing after 30 days ( it doesn't) and yet, even in their denial they leak a nugget of truth, they said how could they smell decom when the body was removed so swiftly?

How do they know the body was moved so swiftly?
They would only know if they were there when it happened and the body was removed.

 cadaverine is fat based, it sticks and is impossible to remove ( furniture clothing etc that a body has been in contact with  after 90 mins plus will smell and no matter how much you launder it, clean it, bleach it etc it will still leave a smell.

They know this.

It was unlucky for them and lucky for us that no other person had died in the apartment else they could have explained it away as that.

They tried to deny their were body fluids in the car at the levension enquiry (perjury) yet when confronted with the evidence blame it on rotting meat, dirty diapers and sweaty feet as well as Sean liking sea bass ( which is alleged to leave a smell similar to cadaverine)

Every time they open their mouths they reveal  a little more of the truth.

Listen to what is actually said, not what you think they said  smilie smilie

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

Hobs

Posts : 715
Reputation : 288
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by sammyc on 26.07.13 21:02

  Excellent Hobs. Excellent.

sammyc

Posts : 218
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2011-10-06
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by PeterMac on 26.07.13 21:17

@Hobs wrote:
Listen to what is actually said, not what you think they said 
Quite.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHY are the McCanns now saying?

Post by Woburn_exile on 28.07.13 14:25

I'm sure SY have been aware of this for years. Didn't Kate say back in 2007 that she had a dream about Madeleine being buried in some sand dunes nearby? This was what sparked the introduction of the cadaver dogs because it was the first time she mentioned the possibility that she may in fact be dead. Gerry made sure that the media blanket squashed any rumours of this and I would hate to think how he got her back under his control afterwards.
Basically , some day the trauma will crack her, I don't know what will set it off but crack she will so if anyone out there reading this is close to her just make sure she does what has to be done and not tell Gerry first. With his back against the wall that is a man capable of anything.

Hi Kate kissy kissy cuddle cuddle. Whats your last memory of little Madeleine?

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

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