Re: Anyone for scraps?

by Sparrow 26.10.13 3:29

Sorry, Okeydokey - it wasn't my intention to get involved in any scraps as a result of my original post on this thread, which was just the scraps I find most interesting!

by **tigger** 26.10.13 6:33

Sparrow: you seem to suffer from the common delusion of (often short term)members that you are debating or answering questions.
You have simply answered my post about photoshopping and the coloboma with a pointless story about the likelihood of a photo of a fridge.

It's known as spamming I believe.

by Liz Eagles 26.10.13 8:20

tigger wrote:Sparrow: you seem to suffer from the common delusion of (often short term)members that you are debating or answering questions.
You have simply answered my post about photoshopping and the coloboma with a pointless story about the likelihood of a photo of a fridge.

It's known as spamming I believe.

Here's a little ditty to get the day going....

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

by MrsC 26.10.13 9:03

Am I right in remembering that GM testified for MO in a case of medical negligence/malpractice or something similar during a routine op? It was before the holiday in Portugal.

Did MO 'owe' GM 'one' (I think I can remember it being worded that way)?

Apologies if I am totally wrong, it's just ringing a bell somewhere in my brain.

by Pennypennypenny 26.10.13 9:06

Isn't it weird reading statements or small parts of statements from the tapas group.? Reading back up the thread a small paragraph from Diane Webster. None of them give straight answers to anything. It's all very vague and lots of "errs and you knows". So bloody frustrating.

by GEROME THE GNOME 26.10.13 9:26

Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

by juliet 26.10.13 11:23

I definitely remember that Oldfield was up for malpractice. I thought the case had yet to be resolved at the time of the holiday...will look for it. It certainly could have been a factor.
Another early memory: perhaps just gossip but there was much talk of Kate having rowed with G one night and puffed off to Murat's house.

by juliet 26.10.13 11:25

That was meant to be huffed off!

by Guest 26.10.13 11:27

I now have an imagine of Kate as the Big Bad Wolf threatening to huff, puff and blow Murat's house down!

by MrsC 26.10.13 11:48

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I now have an imagine of Kate as the Big Bad Wolf threatening to huff, puff and blow Murat's house down!

Well she wasn't called Hot Lips for nothing! winkwink

by Research_Reader 26.10.13 15:27

For me, the late night call between Murat and Malinka remains strange and potentially significant, especially since Murat at first denied it. I haven't seen this mentioned for some times now.

by lj 26.10.13 15:51

MrsC wrote:Am I right in remembering that GM testified for MO in a case of medical negligence/malpractice or something similar during a routine op? It was before the holiday in Portugal.

Did MO 'owe' GM 'one' (I think I can remember it being worded that way)?

Apologies if I am totally wrong, it's just ringing a bell somewhere in my brain.

I remember that, and wondered about it too.

by chillyheat 26.10.13 16:16

The disgusting words from Kate McCann.
"If your child is killed in a traffic accident, or died of cancer, parents are at peace."

I care little for the McCanns, their culpability or lack of it. I care not one iota about their alleged neglect, their parenting skills, what they might have done or what they didn’t do; what their sexual peccadilloes are, how much they drunk, whether they’re narcissistic or arrogant or both.

What I DO care about are the obvious and seemingly limitless network of high profile supporters:- politicians, businessman, media moguls, tycoons, magnates, celebrities, TV pundits, newspaper columnists and chat show presenters who all queue up to peddle Team McCanns official stance;-
That Madeleine McCann was abducted by a paedophile and that the Portuguese were complicit in allowing him to escape by accusing her parents instead.

A stance for which there not only exists not ONE, single, reasonable, feasible, logical or rational scrap of evidence; but for which, rather, there exists a whole plethora of circumstantial evidence to suggest an alternative scenario; one which all of the above are either ignorant of, or choose to ignore.

And if they are electing to ignore that evidence, then one has to ask why?

Or, perhaps, that’s just the problem. The evidence that exists IS, purely circumstantial. Or at least, the evidence that we know about.

For who knows what lies in those boxes of evidence, gathering dust somewhere in a Lisbon Court storeroom?

Documents, files, dossiers and materials that never got released along with the thousands of pages that did.

Materials still retained by the Portuguese for if, and when, they elect to re-open the case.

Materials that never even got released into the hands of the McCanns, despite their most ardent and sustained efforts to secure them.

I wonder if Kate sometimes think about what is in those boxes. late at night, when she is having one of those sleepless, restless nights that she writes about.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Okeydokey 26.10.13 16:32

Pennypennypenny wrote:Isn't it weird reading statements or small parts of statements from the tapas group.? Reading back up the thread a small paragraph from Diane Webster. None of them give straight answers to anything. It's all very vague and lots of "errs and you knows". So bloody frustrating.

It's very frustrating that they never seemed to have been interviewed by Police - either in Portugal or the UK - in a challenging way. As you imply, the idea these are intelligent professionals simply talking about what they did on holiday and in response to the tragic disappearance of a child beggars belief.

by Woofer 26.10.13 18:16

GEROME THE GNOME wrote:Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

There is a picture here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of Malinka`s burnt out car which is said to be 30 metres away from his apartment.

If you go on Google maps and into Rue 25th April, you will see, by the buildings, that this is at the church end of that road and quite near to where the Smith sighting was.

There is more here about him having a boat.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by DurhamGuy1967 02.11.13 11:46

GEROME THE GNOME wrote:Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I'm not sure where he lived. I read within 30m of where his car was burned out. I know where his car was burned out..If you go on google maps. This is on road Rua 25 De Abril go toward the church you can see this distinctive building on the right ( one way Street )

by DurhamGuy1967 02.11.13 13:02

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
GEROME THE GNOME wrote:Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I'm not sure where he lived. I read within 30m of where his car was burned out. I know where his car was burned out..If you go on google maps. This is on road Rua 25 De Abril go toward the church you can see this distinctive building on the right ( one way Street )

Sorry, 40 feet from this car not 30m

by GEROME THE GNOME 02.11.13 17:23

Thanks...seems wierd to me that the Smith sighting was close by, and i read somewhere that Malinka phoned Murat around the same time and Murat phoned him back at 10.40.

by DurhamGuy1967 02.11.13 18:36

You may find this interesting http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/that-key-bit-of-information.html

It's always puzzled me that Madeline was taken somewhere and never found and there is a strong theory that she was kept cool in a fridge or freezer. But who had access to property? And if, as I believe, it was not planned in advance, who had access at short notice in the late evening?

Was she placed in hiding somewhere and that for some reason the person who hid her lost access?

What would you do if you were innocent yet a prime suspect then discovered her in a fridge in a property you had access to? "I've been framed?"

by DurhamGuy1967 02.11.13 18:51

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:You may find this interesting http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/that-key-bit-of-information.html

It's always puzzled me that Madeline was taken somewhere and never found and there is a strong theory that she was kept cool in a fridge or freezer. But who had access to property? And if, as I believe, it was not planned in advance, who had access at short notice in the late evening?

Was she placed in hiding somewhere and that for some reason the person who hid her lost access?

What would you do if you were innocent yet a prime suspect then discovered her in a fridge in a property you had access to? "I've been framed?"

What if you found her, would you consider blackmail?

by Rufus T 06.09.14 11:35

Okeydokey wrote:
whmon wrote:The 'New Zealand wine': Why did KM state that they had drank some New Zealand wine in the apartment and not just 'some wine'? I think I know why. There is quite a lot of anthropological research on drinking as this is treated quite differently in and within different cultures. To state 'some wine' or just 'a few drinks' means that the individual is focussed on the alcohol. To state 'New Zealand wine' (or any other named brand) takes it to a different level of semantics and means that the individual wants the listeners to believe that the focus was not the alcohol but the experience of consuming a certain thing because of the taste. I hope I am making myself clear. For example, I have a couple of friends - she does not drink and does not allow him to drink. He subsequently does not 'drink' but is allowed to go to real ale bars and festivals because it is not 'drink' - no! it is not anywhere near as 'common' as that. He is not 'drinking' he is tasting real ale!
Might be something in that. But might be something to do with sales receipts.

Indeed, Kate's insistence on telling us the wine was from New Zealand has been playing on my mind recently.
Is she doing it for the reason set out above by whmon or Okeydokey ?
Is she telling us that New Zealand is of importance to the case?
Does she wish to divert attention from Portuguese wine for some reason?
Is it some kind of product placement thing?
Or something else?

I wish I knew the answer, but at the moment I am really focusing on this - just need to think about it some more. Any thoughts on this matter ?

by truthfultiger 06.09.14 13:09

Hmm, isn't there a very famous pop star with a vineyard just up the road? Maybe they didn't want to admit to drinking Portuguese wine. Or maybe I'm getting too far fetched... I don't know.

by HelenMeg 06.09.14 13:36

I would think it is very much to do with sales receipts

by Nina 06.09.14 17:40

I think it was to just paint a picture of companionship and affection after getting the children to sleep. A time of calm with a drink of a wine that was special to them, had special memories as a couple. Sitting chatting, enjoying the wine and then a leisurely supper with friends. :puke:

by Guest 06.09.14 18:11

Rufus T wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
whmon wrote:The 'New Zealand wine': Why did KM state that they had drank some New Zealand wine in the apartment and not just 'some wine'? I think I know why. There is quite a lot of anthropological research on drinking as this is treated quite differently in and within different cultures. To state 'some wine' or just 'a few drinks' means that the individual is focussed on the alcohol. To state 'New Zealand wine' (or any other named brand) takes it to a different level of semantics and means that the individual wants the listeners to believe that the focus was not the alcohol but the experience of consuming a certain thing because of the taste. I hope I am making myself clear. For example, I have a couple of friends - she does not drink and does not allow him to drink. He subsequently does not 'drink' but is allowed to go to real ale bars and festivals because it is not 'drink' - no! it is not anywhere near as 'common' as that. He is not 'drinking' he is tasting real ale!
Might be something in that. But might be something to do with sales receipts.
Indeed, Kate's insistence on telling us the wine was from New Zealand has been playing on my mind recently.
Is she doing it for the reason set out above by whmon or Okeydokey ?
Is she telling us that New Zealand is of importance to the case?
Does she wish to divert attention from Portuguese wine for some reason?
Is it some kind of product placement thing?
Or something else?

I wish I knew the answer, but at the moment I am really focusing on this - just need to think about it some more. Any thoughts on this matter ?

They are screaming social-climbers and are always desperate to portray themselves in the right image, that being middle-middle class which is the natural state of their other Tapas friends but not themselves, Gerry being working-class and Kate lower-middle.

It's important - I think - to remember that this continuous striving to appear better than they are affects the way they dress, speak, behave (think Gerry's bullishness) and the words they use.

Yes. To have 'a drink' is a very lower-class thing to do (unless you're an aristocrat (they admit it with abandon, having no shame and no need to prove anything to anyone)), upper-middles have cocktails before dinner and whisky afterwards, middle-middles have Beaujolais, Bordeaux, Chablis or obscure German whites (but not Chardonnay or Pinot any more). Lower-middles have 'a nice red' or a 'dry white', Buds, perry and sherry. The working-classes have anything (I should know! titter

).

So it is quite credible that they were simply demonstrating their 'refined tastes' by specifying New Zealand white rather than the local plonk. Snobbishly futile, imo, because most of the Portugues wine I've had is delish. It could be that 'New Zealand' sprang to mind because, ironically, that was the local plonk they drank when they lived there.

However, just because this is, imo, typical behaviour for them does not rule out the posibility that yet more smoke and mirrors stuff was also going on.

What's the thing with the receipts? Which receipts?