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

3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Page 3 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by jeanmonroe on 11.03.14 14:19

GM 04/05/2007

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual   carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs
---------------------
"it IS EMPHASISED" (I BET IT WAS!   winkwink  winkwink )
-----------------------------------------------

KM 04/05/2007

Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.

After having read the deed, she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter.
---------------------------------------------------------

JANE SAW 'ABDUCTION' FROM 50 (FIFTY) METRES ACCORDING TO BOTH MCCANNS!

AND WITH JW/GM COMPLETELY 'BLOCKING' HER VIEW FROM 50 METRES BY STANDING OUTSIDE 5A GATEWAY ON THE SAME FOOTPATH SHE WAS ON!

AS JW HAS TOLD US!

AND CONFIRMED IN THE T9 'TYPED' TIMELINE, 'WRITTEN' IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MCCANNS PRESENT!

WHY DAVE 'GRABBIT' EDGAR  TRIED TO PLACE MCCANN ACROSS THE STREET, TOTALLY AWAY FROM 5A GATEWAY, IS ANYBODY'S GUESS!

DIDN'T THE ONLY 'PROFESSIONAL' PI THE MCCANNS HAD EVER 'HIRED' READ THE 'FILES'?

IT'S ALL IN THERE, 'EXACTLY' WHERE HE 'WAS' WHEN TANNER 'WALKED BY'

STANDING FOUR SQUARE NEXT TO THE GATEWAY TO 5A , CHATTING WITH JW!

ON THE SAME PATH AS J TANNER!

jeanmonroe

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by HelenMeg on 11.03.14 14:56

The only certain thing that afternoon was the Paraiso visit by TAPAS  7 where they were caught on camera. These people cannot be trusted to tell the truth. (IMO)

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by j.rob on 11.03.14 15:08

Kate McCann on page 64 of her book writes about a conversation allegedly between her, Russell and another guest on the day of Madeleine's 'disappearance'. 

 According to her version of events the guest 'appeared with a video camera to record his three-year-old daughter playing mini-tennis. He looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man. It led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles. I remember Russell talking about how everything had got a bit out of hand, that these days people were so untrusting you hardly dared speak to children you didn't know............we agreed it was a shame things had come to this, especially for the children. It would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation."

There is so much in this passage which is quite extraordinary. But notice how, having introduced the subject of paedophilia - a horrible crime that most parents would shudder to imagine - Kate then minimizes the crime by writing that Russell said 'everything had got a bit out of hand'. The inference being that parents are unnecessarily paranoid. What normal parent would consider filming their child as the activity of a 'dirty old man'? It's just a weird thing to say.

As is nearly always the case with what Kate writes, the passage reveals a remarkable level of double-bluff and deception, imo. Whether or not this conversation ever took place (and it would be easy to verify this with the eye-witness) and whether this eye-witness actually said those things, there must be a good reason why Kate included this in her book. And chose to place this conversation on the very day that Madeleine disappeared. At a very specific time in the day.

In actual fact, she starts the recollection of that episode with the words: "The morning continued like the others with kids' clubs and tennis.'

I would take that to mean that that particular morning was unlike any other morning.

It is also very strange that in Russell O'Brien's statement, he gives a different account of this conversation: 

 States that he does not remember any discussion between any of the couples, or any other element of the group with him, nor equally between any of the group with a third-party.

- The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL - a British individual, married, and with a daughter of 3 years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and 'the state to which the world has come'. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate. 
- States that what he has just related is the truth of the facts.


The account is quite different to Kates, although it is unclear exactly who is filming his daughter. Does he mean that part of the McCann group were filming Nigel's daughter with a video camera? 'Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed.'

The inference here, I think, is that a member of the McCann group were filming Nigel's daughter and Nigel approached them and told them he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. However Russell tells the police: 'he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus.'

Nigel describes the conversation as 'trivial' - yet by his own account, the father of a three-year-old was upset that a member of their group were filming his child without his permission. I hardly think that is 'trivial'. And, furthermore, the conversation turned to paedophilia. This is not a 'trivial' topic of conversation.

This is all very peculiar indeed. And Kate's version of events is entirely different to that of Russell.

I wonder what Nigel has to say about his episode? Were members of the McCann group (and in her book, Kate only places herself and Russell there plus Nigel approaching them) filming Nigel's three year old daughter playing mini-tennis?

If so - why? And IF what Nigel says is true and that a member of the McCAnn group were filming Nigel's three year old daughter playing tennis, why did Russell tell police that 'he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus?

But Kate in her book says that Nigel was the one filming his own daughter, an activity which allegedly made him 'embarrassed' and caused him to 'laughingly remark to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

Beyond suspicious, imo.

And also ties in curiously with that allegedly 'final' photo of Madeleine on the tennis court. 

How I despise these lying doctors.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by j.rob on 11.03.14 15:16

Sorry that was very long. The point is: Kate writes that Nigel was filming his three year old daughter playing mini tennis. She suggests that this activity made him embarrassed and feeling like a dirty old man.

Russell's account is entirely different. He suggests that someone else - I think the inference is a member of the McCann group - was filming Nigel's daughter playing mini tennis. And Nigel approached them as he was uncomfortable about other adults filming his daughter without his permission.


Kate places the  video camera firmly in Nigel's hands. Russell places the video camera in someone else's hands - but can't remember seeing one in his group. 

Hmmm.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by bobbin on 11.03.14 16:34

@j.rob wrote:Sorry that was very long. The point is: Kate writes that Nigel was filming his three year old daughter playing mini tennis. She suggests that this activity made him embarrassed and feeling like a dirty old man.

Russell's account is entirely different. He suggests that someone else - I think the inference is a member of the McCann group - was filming Nigel's daughter playing mini tennis. And Nigel approached them as he was uncomfortable about other adults filming his daughter without his permission.


Kate places the  video camera firmly in Nigel's hands. Russell places the video camera in someone else's hands - but can't remember seeing one in his group. 

Hmmm.

I was going to ask if David Payne had a video camera, and then I remembered that he had been the one video'ing the bus journey when Gerry so politely told him to 'f**k off', he wasn't here to enjoy himself. I wonder if Nigel is able to remember, from ID pictures, or photographs of Tapas 9, who was holding the camera that made him feel uneasy, if Russ's statement is being interpreted correctly, as it, on the surface, would seem to be.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by j.rob on 11.03.14 17:29

One interpretation of this curious episode could be this.

Kate and or Russell or another member of their group were filming Nigel's daughter playing mini tennis on the day that Madeleine allegedly disappeared. 

Nigel went up to them because he did not like their behaviour. He was not happy that they were filming his daughter and/or the manner in which it was being done.  The message is clear: he 'felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed.' 

Russell was obliged to give an account of this episode to the police, because Nigel presumably did as well. And Nigel is an important witness. He not only saw and spoke to Russell and Kate (and/or other members of the group) but he also  witnessed their behaviour  which made him feel uncomfortable. And presumably reported this to the police.

The police clearly ask Russell about this episode but, when questioned 'the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus.'


So Russell effectively denies that he or a member of the McCann group were filming Nigel's daughter, despite Nigel having not only seen them doing it, but also talked to them about it. And even about paedophilia. 

Russell states he did not see anyone with a video recorder.

But how come Kate in her book clearly and unequivocally recounts how Nigel 'appeared with a video camera' to record his daughter playing tennis. And Russell, according to Kate, is standing next to her - they are chatting apparently - when Nigel appears with his video recorder.

Not only that, Nigel  'looked a little embarrassed' and laughingly remarks to the pair of them - ie to Kate and Russell - that 'filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

So how could Russell possibly 'not remember' seeing anyone with a video recorder? Or could it just be that he wishes not to remember that he might have been caught behaving like a 'dirty old man' while video-recording Nigel's daughter?

"The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family"

That's sweet and magnanimous of Russell! Unfortunately, however, it appears that the converse is not true. Nigel was suspicious of Russell and Kate.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by CynicAl on 11.03.14 18:42

I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection. 

Fact: just because you do not know anyone who do x, y or z does not mean that (a) no other people do x, y or z and/or (b) the people you know don't do x, y or z without you having known that they do. 

I'm from Yorkshire. I'm very familiar with the term 'twizzle.'  I, and various family members use it both with children and also to describe the act of twirling round to show off the fit of an outfit, and my partner who is in fashion retail and is not a British national uses it all the time in her shop. She learned it from other Yorkshire people than my family. 

Additionally, not everyone operates on the same level of suspicion and mistrust. Faith-based groups, as one example, are typically very trusting of each other with their children unless there is reason to be otherwise. While bathtimes for many are a strictly family affair, that's usually an issue of practicality and opportunity. I refuse to entertain the idea that such a shared activity automatically equates to some dirty nefarious wickedness. I think the more we lean toward presuming that all these families had a casual attitude to pedophilia in such an exposed and uncontrollable environment, the more preposterous and thin the hypothesis becomes. 

I have had conversations with people who were taking photographs or video and lamented the sorry state of the world in which they felt guilty for doing so and wished they didn't have to wonder how their actions would be construed. I don't believe those people were either pedophiles or angry defensive parents. A police interview might indicate what words were used, but they don't convey how they were spoken, and that can be all the difference between the appearance of innocence and the presumption of guilt. 

I know people who trust their children to the care of others solely on the basis of knowing them personally and them having professional CRB checks or a security clearance. Statistically there's no reason to believe that this is an unsafe gamble on their part. And these were doctors. For rigpht or wrong, many people will surrender their safety and dignity to doctors, nurses, police, when they might not do so with anyone else -  even their own relatives. We generally accept these as 'trusted adults' within our social circles. 

And most people choose not to live in a state of constant paranoia and fear, anticipating that no one can be trusted and pedophiles are lurking everywhere. 

And the number one reason why I don't believe pedophilia has a thing to do with this case? 

Because Gerry McCann said it does. Because Kate McCann said it does. And because you'd have to be so inhuman to let your mate sexually molest your 4 year old daughter and kill her while doing it leaving you to cover it up and spend seven years suffering the world's suspicions against you for something you could easily pin on the perpetrator, that it would be impossible to keep a lid on it, without your behaviour or psychology manifesting profound symptoms of being so debased, both before and after. 

I'm still going with accidental death, with damage management. 

Although I did wonder whether there was evidence supporting the possibility that this was a family-controlled euthanasia of a terminally ill youngster?

CynicAl

Posts : 181
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by aquila on 11.03.14 18:58

@CynicAl wrote:I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection. 

Fact: just because you do not know anyone who do x, y or z does not mean that (a) no other people do x, y or z and/or (b) the people you know don't do x, y or z without you having known that they do. 

I'm from Yorkshire. I'm very familiar with the term 'twizzle.'  I, and various family members use it both with children and also to describe the act of twirling round to show off the fit of an outfit, and my partner who is in fashion retail and is not a British national uses it all the time in her shop. She learned it from other Yorkshire people than my family. 

Additionally, not everyone operates on the same level of suspicion and mistrust. Faith-based groups, as one example, are typically very trusting of each other with their children unless there is reason to be otherwise. While bathtimes for many are a strictly family affair, that's usually an issue of practicality and opportunity. I refuse to entertain the idea that such a shared activity automatically equates to some dirty nefarious wickedness. I think the more we lean toward presuming that all these families had a casual attitude to pedophilia in such an exposed and uncontrollable environment, the more preposterous and thin the hypothesis becomes. 

I have had conversations with people who were taking photographs or video and lamented the sorry state of the world in which they felt guilty for doing so and wished they didn't have to wonder how their actions would be construed. I don't believe those people were either pedophiles or angry defensive parents. A police interview might indicate what words were used, but they don't convey how they were spoken, and that can be all the difference between the appearance of innocence and the presumption of guilt. 

I know people who trust their children to the care of others solely on the basis of knowing them personally and them having professional CRB checks or a security clearance. Statistically there's no reason to believe that this is an unsafe gamble on their part. And these were doctors. For rigpht or wrong, many people will surrender their safety and dignity to doctors, nurses, police, when they might not do so with anyone else -  even their own relatives. We generally accept these as 'trusted adults' within our social circles. 

And most people choose not to live in a state of constant paranoia and fear, anticipating that no one can be trusted and pedophiles are lurking everywhere. 

And the number one reason why I don't believe pedophilia has a thing to do with this case? 

Because Gerry McCann said it does. Because Kate McCann said it does. And because you'd have to be so inhuman to let your mate sexually molest your 4 year old daughter and kill her while doing it leaving you to cover it up and spend seven years suffering the world's suspicions against you for something you could easily pin on the perpetrator, that it would be impossible to keep a lid on it, without your behaviour or psychology manifesting profound symptoms of being so debased, both before and after. 

I'm still going with accidental death, with damage management. 

Although I did wonder whether there was evidence supporting the possibility that this was a family-controlled euthanasia of a terminally ill youngster?
Snipped from your post CynicAl. The first sentence of your post

"I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection"

If I look over the rest of your post I struggle to see where you have stuck to facts and have declined to interpret or project.

This case does that to you.
 roses

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by PeterMac on 11.03.14 19:07

@CynicAl wrote:I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection. SNIP
And the number one reason why I don't believe pedophilia has a thing to do with this case? 
Because Gerry McCann said it does. Because Kate McCann said it does.

Well said.

And the number ONE reason I do not believe Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd . . .?
Because the McCanns insist, with every fibre of their being, and every possible made up Photo time and date, and details of everything -
clothing, emphasis, more emphasis, getting 'rid of the Tapas group'.
detailed complaints about crying, too much detail about having a family conference to improve the watching arrangements
details about everyone else having checked her, or having checked by listening at the window
everything , down to the last 'jot and tittle', crossed 'T', dotted 'I', that she was.
They did not even hand over the one photo which might have "proved' it, until three weeks later -
and so far as I am aware have never officially given it to the PJ, despite what GM said in his 10 May statement ! !

All that added together indicates to me that she was NOT.

Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
Wer sich entschudigt, sich beschuldigt

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by j.rob on 11.03.14 19:09

Kate writes in her book that Nigel was video-recording his daughter. And both Kate and Russell witnessed this. And had a conversation about it. 

Russell in his police statement denies seeing anyone with a video recorder.

According to Russell's police statement, a member of the McCann group was filming Nigel's daughter and Nigel was uncomfortable enough about this to speak to Russell and Kate about it.


They can't have it all ways. Who was using the video-recorder - Nigel or a member of the McCann party?

Really, it's a very simple question. And Nigel presumably knows the answer.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

3 new

Post by mariola on 11.03.14 19:23

@PeterMac wrote:
@CynicAl wrote:I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection. SNIP
And the number one reason why I don't believe pedophilia has a thing to do with this case? 
Because Gerry McCann said it does. Because Kate McCann said it does.

Well said.

And the number ONE reason I do not believe Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd . . .?
Because the McCanns insist, with every fibre of their being, and every possible made up Photo time and date, and details of everything -
clothing, emphasis, more emphasis, getting 'rid of the Tapas group'.
detailed complaints about crying, too much detail about having a family conference to improve the watching arrangements
details about everyone else having checked her, or having checked by listening at the window
everything , down to the last 'jot and tittle', crossed 'T', dotted 'I', that she was.
They did not even hand over the one photo which might have "proved' it, until three weeks later -
and so far as I am aware have never officially given it to the PJ, despite what GM said in his 10 May statement ! !

All that added together indicates to me that she was NOT.

Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
Wer sich entschudigt, sich beschuldigt
pm your logic is immecable,mon ami.when do you think the rest of the cast were informed?

mariola

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 11.03.14 19:30

@j.rob wrote:One interpretation of this curious episode could be this.

Kate and or Russell or another member of their group were filming Nigel's daughter playing mini tennis on the day that Madeleine allegedly disappeared. 

Nigel went up to them because he did not like their behaviour. He was not happy that they were filming his daughter and/or the manner in which it was being done.  The message is clear: he 'felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed.' 

Russell was obliged to give an account of this episode to the police, because Nigel presumably did as well. And Nigel is an important witness. He not only saw and spoke to Russell and Kate (and/or other members of the group) but he also  witnessed their behaviour  which made him feel uncomfortable. And presumably reported this to the police.

The police clearly ask Russell about this episode but, when questioned 'the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus.'


So Russell effectively denies that he or a member of the McCann group were filming Nigel's daughter, despite Nigel having not only seen them doing it, but also talked to them about it. And even about paedophilia. 

Russell states he did not see anyone with a video recorder.

But how come Kate in her book clearly and unequivocally recounts how Nigel 'appeared with a video camera' to record his daughter playing tennis. And Russell, according to Kate, is standing next to her - they are chatting apparently - when Nigel appears with his video recorder.

Not only that, Nigel  'looked a little embarrassed' and laughingly remarks to the pair of them - ie to Kate and Russell - that 'filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

So how could Russell possibly 'not remember' seeing anyone with a video recorder? Or could it just be that he wishes not to remember that he might have been caught behaving like a 'dirty old man' while video-recording Nigel's daughter?

"The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family"

That's sweet and magnanimous of Russell! Unfortunately, however, it appears that the converse is not true. Nigel was suspicious of Russell and Kate.

And remember, that the book was written after Russell's testimony was placed in the public domain. So KH's version of the truth could be seen as a pre-emptive strike, an attempt to put an innocent spin on a rather ugly incident

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by kevmack on 11.03.14 20:48

The possibility that the Mc's and co are taking videos of the kids playing tennis on the day that Madeleine allegedly disappeared is quite interesting considering that many of us believe that Madeleine was possibly dead before the 3rd and there seems to be a lot of conflicting accounts, creche records, even photos that were produced to convince everyone that Madeleine was alive and well on that day.  Perhaps they hoped to get a video of a 3yr old girl running around the tennis court amongst a bunch of other kids on the same court and try to claim it was Madeleine?  Brigitte O'Donnel certainly gave a compelling case for this with her description of all of the little blonde girls, dressed in pink and that she was sure that Madeleine would have been one of them!

But they were rumbled by Nigel!

kevmack

Posts : 238
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by bobbin on 11.03.14 21:26

@kevmack wrote:The possibility that the Mc's and co are taking videos of the kids playing tennis on the day that Madeleine allegedly disappeared is quite interesting considering that many of us believe that Madeleine was possibly dead before the 3rd and there seems to be a lot of conflicting accounts, creche records, even photos that were produced to convince everyone that Madeleine was alive and well on that day.  Perhaps they hoped to get a video of a 3yr old girl running around the tennis court amongst a bunch of other kids on the same court and try to claim it was Madeleine?  Brigitte O'Donnel certainly gave a compelling case for this with her description of all of the little blonde girls, dressed in pink and that she was sure that Madeleine would have been one of them!

But they were rumbled by Nigel!

Whereas at this point we might go looking on the internet for details of said 'witness' to events, this time I don't feel inclined to.

I do hope however, that this Nigel has been located and had a very good interview with the PJ, to help them have an account which is neither Kate's, Russell's nor any other member of the McC group who might have been video'ing his daughter.

I hope the PJ have had the chance to see photos of Nigel's daughter, to see if she is similar to Maddie, and will be sufficiently in contact with this gentleman, who on Russell (the quiet's) account was displeased with McC group photographing his daughter, apparently.

How convenient it would have been if the discreet video could have been used to prove that Maddie was around on the 3rd.
It could have saved Gerry the trouble of going back to the UK to retrieve the last photo and would have saved him being discovered for producing a fake/ not photo'ed on 3rd photo, which has drawn attention to the fact that there is no one who can 'prove' that Maddie was alive and at PdL on 3rd May.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by kevmack on 11.03.14 21:46

Well Bobbin, the PJ were very thorough, so hopefully they will have interviewed them.  Nigel himself may have taken it upon himself to contact police in the aftermath of the disappearance, it was afterall, in his mind, strange behaviour that made him uncomfortable enough to speak to Russell, even though it was a holiday complex, Kate and Russell were parents as well, so it does seem to be a bit unusual that another parent would have an issue with videoing a group event...most of us have probably been at school plays etc and not had a problem with other parents taking photos, videos etc.

So why was this different?  Was Nigel just super paranoid?  Doesn't seem to be according to the conversation Russell relates.  Or was the holder of the video camera specifically targeting Nigel's daughter, rather than their own child in such a way as to concern Nigel?

Yes, it would be really interesting to know what the PJ and SY think of this encounter, even just from the conflicting accounts by Kate in her book and Russell in his statement and of course what Nigel had to say about it.

kevmack

Posts : 238
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 11.03.14 23:47

great post cynicAl.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 12.03.14 0:32

Bobbin said:

"How convenient it would have been if the discreet video could have been used to prove that Maddie was around on the 3rd"


I don't think filming someone else's child is a very smart way of 'proving' your missing (deceased) daughter was alive on the afternoon of 3rd. 


I'm with many here who don't believe she WAS alive on 3rd - and I'm with the earlier poster who reminded us that nothing the McCanns say should be accepted as true. As far as I'm concerned the many references to Madeleine on 3rd are about creating the impression she was alive: the 'mummy why didn't you come when..?', DP's visit... All to be treated as somehow instrumental to the McCann's clumsy attempt to control the 'truth' which began with "They've taken her", moved quickly to "Paedophiles" and then to ropey stories that don't add up and culminate in the cringe-fest that is Kate's bewk. The only surprising thing is that, inept as they have been, the British system has been even more inept and they've got away with it so far.


Kevin? Videocamera? Feeling like a dirty old man? I don't believe a word of it.

____________________
The prime suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be permitted to dictate what can and can't be discussed about the case

ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by frost on 12.03.14 8:10

I can believe that a parent could say they felt like a dirty old man through filming these days as it is so frowned upon now unless you have prior permission . 

I worked in education for many years and after the Soham murders things changed dramatically . What was once seen as innocent was innocent no more . Schools began sending letters out that no filming or photos were allowed to be taken at things like school plays , sports days , nativity plays etc and if the school was going to take a video that parents could buy all parents had to give permission for their child to be filmed . The same applies to school websites parents are asked for permission for their childs photo to appear on the website . 

I have seen parents asked to stop filming or taking photos and the look on their faces when they realise why they are being asked this and yes one or two have turned round and made remarks such as you don't think im a paedophile or something do you im just taking photos of my kids ? I have to say not all parents have taken kindly to this though others agree with the rules now in force and many do object if they see someone trying to film . It is difficult to uphold though now with the introduction of camera phones and I no longer work in education so I have no idea how this policy is now being enforced other than permission letters I have had for my own children and also all schools have their own rules albeit they are usually very similar .

As an aside CRB checks for all members of staff and indeed anyone coming into contact with children whether it be youth group ,local footie team etc came about as a direct result of the Soham murders .

frost

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by CynicAl on 12.03.14 10:52

@aquila wrote:
@CynicAl wrote:I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection. 

Fact: just because you do ntion or projection. ot know anyone who do x, y or z does not mean that (a) no other people do x, y or z and/or (b) the people you know don't do x, y or z without you having known that they do. 

I'm from Yorkshire. I'm very familiar with the term 'twizzle.'  I, and various family members use it both with children and also to describe the act of twirling round to sgationhow off the fit of an outfit, and my partner who is in fashion retail and is not a British national uses it all the time in her shop. She learned it from other Yorkshire people than my family. 

Additionally, not everyone operates on the same level of suspicion and mistrust. Faith-based groups, as one example, are typically very trusting of each other with their children unless there is reason to be otherwise. While bathtimes for many are a strictly family affair, that's usually an issue of practicality and opportunity. I refuse to entertain the idea that such a shared activity automatically equates to some dirty nefarious wickedness. I think the more we lean toward presuming that all these families had a casual attitude to pedophilia in such an exposed and uncontrollable environment, the more preposterous and thin the hypothesis becomes. 

I have had conversations with people who were taking photographs or video and lamented the sorry state of the world in which they felt guilty for doing so and wished they didn't have to wonder how their actions would be construed. I don't believe those people were either pedophiles or angry defensive parents. A police interview might indicate what words were used, but they don't convey how they were spoken, and that can be all the difference between the appearance of innocence and the presumption of guilt. 

I know people who trust their children to the care of others solely on the basis of knowing them personally and them having professional CRB checks or a security clearance. Statistically there's no reason to believe that this is an unsafe gamble on their part. And these were doctors. For rigpht or wrong, many people will surrender their safety and dignity to doctors, nurses, police, when they might not do so with anyone else -  even their own relatives. We generally accept these as 'trusted adults' within our social circles. 

And most people choose not to live in a state of constant paranoia and fear, anticipating that no one can be trusted and pedophiles are lurking everywhere. 

And the number one reason why I don't believe pedophilia has a thing to do with this case? 

Because Gerry McCann said it does. Because Kate McCann said it does. And because you'd have to be so inhuman to let your mate sexually molest your 4 year old daughter and kill her while doing it leaving you to cover it up and spend seven years suffering the world's suspicions against you for something you could easily pin on the perpetrator, that it would be impossible to keep a lid on it, without your behaviour or psychology manifesting profound symptoms of being so debased, both before and after. 

I'm still going with accidental death, with damage management. 

Although I did wonder whether there was evidence supporting the possibility that this was a family-controlled euthanasia of a terminally ill youngster?
Snipped from your post CynicAl. The first sentence of your post

"I think its important to stick to facts, not interpretation or projection"

If I look over the rest of your post I struggle to see where you have stuck to facts and have declined to interpret or project.

This case does that to you.
 roses

Aquila, 

You must have also struggled to see any place where I asserted as fact anything which required interpretation or projection. 

I stated my personal experience. I refuted generalism based on my personal experience of precedents which refute the generalisms I intended to refute, and I argued against implausible wild conclusions derived from (mis) interpretations of credibly explicable points of objective fact, which had led to insinuated accusations of misleading scandal, using fair-minded reasoning, common sense and personal experience. 

The two methodologies are not equal and opposite. Objective investigation demands you begin with the least number of assumptions and an absence of implausible personal interpretations and subjective projections of objectively stated facts. In other words, you avoid the kind of hysterical thinking by which one might read a police statement in which a family friend talks about twizzling his best friends daughter and leap to the conclusion that the man is a degenerate pedophile who is having a laugh and goading the police by using the term 'twizzle' as a euphemism for pedophilia. To take something objectively innocuous and turn it into scandal based on unreasonable, implausible and disprovable extreme interpretations and personal projections is unnecessary, misleading, pointless and wrong - literally an act of projection and (mis) interpretation as if fact. To disassemble such troublesome constructs based on experience, common sense or logic does not in any way create a new 'factual' or positively asserted position, rather to simply return us to the prima fascie position, the 'point zero' where we await the reasonable and intelligent leading of evidence under intelligent investigation.

CynicAl

Posts : 181
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by CynicAl on 12.03.14 10:57

@frost wrote:I can believe that a parent could say they felt like a dirty old man through filming these days as it is so frowned upon now unless you have prior permission . 

I worked in education for many years and after the Soham murders things changed dramatically . What was once seen as innocent was innocent no more . Schools began sending letters out that no filming or photos were allowed to be taken at things like school plays , sports days , nativity plays etc and if the school was going to take a video that parents could buy all parents had to give permission for their child to be filmed . The same applies to school websites parents are asked for permission for their childs photo to appear on the website . 

I have seen parents asked to stop filming or taking photos and the look on their faces when they realise why they are being asked this and yes one or two have turned round and made remarks such as you don't think im a paedophile or something do you im just taking photos of my kids ? I have to say not all parents have taken kindly to this though others agree with the rules now in force and many do object if they see someone trying to film . It is difficult to uphold though now with the introduction of camera phones and I no longer work in education so I have no idea how this policy is now being enforced other than permission letters I have had for my own children and also all schools have their own rules albeit they are usually very similar .

As an aside CRB checks for all members of staff and indeed anyone coming into contact with children whether it be youth group ,local footie team etc came about as a direct result of the Soham murders .

Exactly. 

Been in situations where I had to think about using a camera very seriously, including the recording of juvenile crime. 

This conversation was not then, and is not now unusual. Sadly and to our detriment, I think we've gone way over the top, and our measures in doing so have not altered things one bit, only contributed to our paranoia and promoted the vilifying of innocent people doing innocent things and being judged by the interpretations of the overzealous and paranoid, the war on pedophilia being of the same effect and purpose as the war on terror.

CynicAl

Posts : 181
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 12.03.14 11:03

@CynicAl wrote:

Exactly. 

Been in situations where I had to think about using a camera very seriously, including the recording of juvenile crime. 

This conversation was not then, and is not now unusual. Sadly and to our detriment, I think we've gone way over the top, and our measures in doing so have not altered things one bit, only contributed to our paranoia and promoted the vilifying of innocent people doing innocent things and being judged by the interpretations of the overzealous and paranoid, the war on pedophilia being of the same effect and purpose as the war on terror.

I've actually found these situations refreshingly relaxed since my own daughter started school. I think there's a lot of Daily Hate style hyperbole around the issue whereas most people, left to their own devices, are pretty sensible about such things.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.03.14 11:04

@CynicAl wrote:
Exactly. 

Been in situations where I had to think about using a camera very seriously, including the recording of juvenile crime. 

This conversation was not then, and is not now unusual. Sadly and to our detriment, I think we've gone way over the top, and our measures in doing so have not altered things one bit, only contributed to our paranoia and promoted the vilifying of innocent people doing innocent things and being judged by the interpretations of the overzealous and paranoid, the war on pedophilia being of the same effect and purpose as the war on terror.

Yes, I agree. This conversation is common, or was common before phones got cameras. There was a lot of paranoia around at the time.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by j.rob on 12.03.14 11:10

@frost wrote:I can believe that a parent could say they felt like a dirty old man through filming these days as it is so frowned upon now unless you have prior permission . 

I worked in education for many years and after the Soham murders things changed dramatically . What was once seen as innocent was innocent no more . Schools began sending letters out that no filming or photos were allowed to be taken at things like school plays , sports days , nativity plays etc and if the school was going to take a video that parents could buy all parents had to give permission for their child to be filmed . The same applies to school websites parents are asked for permission for their childs photo to appear on the website . 

I have seen parents asked to stop filming or taking photos and the look on their faces when they realise why they are being asked this and yes one or two have turned round and made remarks such as you don't think im a paedophile or something do you im just taking photos of my kids ? I have to say not all parents have taken kindly to this though others agree with the rules now in force and many do object if they see someone trying to film . It is difficult to uphold though now with the introduction of camera phones and I no longer work in education so I have no idea how this policy is now being enforced other than permission letters I have had for my own children and also all schools have their own rules albeit they are usually very similar .

As an aside CRB checks for all members of staff and indeed anyone coming into contact with children whether it be youth group ,local footie team etc came about as a direct result of the Soham murders .
I still think the dirty old man comment is a little odd in the context of filming your own children which is pretty much de rigeur when on holiday. Or indeed at school events and so on. Incredibly common to do this - especially when your children are that age.

However, I can see that if other adults were filming your child, you might find that a bit odd. And you might feel that they should have asked permission first, or explained why they wanted to film another person's child rather than their own.

Schools do have to ask permission to show children's faces on websites and so on. Although when my own children were small I do not remember having to ask permission to film a play and so on - in which there would be other children participating as well as your own -  so long as it was not going to go into the public domain. 

I think it is quite interesting to view this case in the aftermarth of the Soham murders as there was definitely an atmosphere of slight paranoia and I think the McCanns were capitalizing on this. The Soham murders recieved massive publicity and of course, in this particular case, the parents had nothing at all to do with what happened and their reaction was consistent, imo,  with parents who had had to endure one of the worst things imaginable.

If it is true that Nigel Foster approached Russell and Kate, and possibly other members of the McCann group, and told them that he was uncomfortable with his three year old daughter being filmed playing mini-tennis, it does raise some interesting questions. This happened, apparently,  during the late morning on the day of Madeleine's disappearance.

As it appears that the McCanns were very keen indeed to provide 'evidence' that Madeleine was in the kids' club that day and indeed on previous days,  could it be that Foster child resembled Madeleine and they were hoping that video-footage could provide at least clues that Madeleine had participated in mini-tennis at the kids' club that week? 

Or at least they might have been hoping that the video-footage of the Foster girl playing mini-tennis that morning could be passed off as evidence that Kate and/or Russell were recording the mini-tennis sessions in which Madeleine had participated (when she may not have done).

On page 120 of her book, Kate writes about how Gerry's sister Phil had sent out a chain email which included a downloadable poster featuring a photograph of Madeleine, the one of her holding the tennis balls, taken two days before she vanished. " So, in other words, on the Tuesday. 


And on page 66, Kate is very clearly wants to provide evidence that Madeleine was in the kids' club on the day of her disappearance, describing how Madeleine was dropped off with the Minis at 2.30pm. She describes how it had been arranged for Gerry to meet the children (after their afternoon club) and that while she takes a run along the beach she sees 'the rest of our holiday group'. "I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ and Jane had collected Ella. ......I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry."

"Madeleine was sitting at the Tapas terrace eating. She looked so pale and worn out, I went straight up to her and asked if she was all right. Had she been OK at the club when Ella left to go to the beach. Yes, she said, but now she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later, the five of us went back to the apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening."

Some food for thought, perhaps.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 12.03.14 11:47

We live near a tiny village primary school of about 200 kids where everybody knows everybody. Plays, sports days, concerts etc are strictly by invitation and parents only because one class and their parents is enough to fill the school hall to capacity and the sports field isn't much larger.

Eight/nine years ago, when my son started there, we and other parents of new starters were told in no uncertain terms that we could not photograph our child on school premises due to health and safety rules and the risk to all the children that we might be paedophiles (pretty much the acting headteacher's exact words)

A new headteacher started a few months later and reaped the whirlwind of complaints about us not being able to take photographs and, more importantly, the local education authority's stance of labelling us all potential peodophiles.

Eventually, after 4 or 5 years of campaigning, we (the parents) were told we could take photographs but we had to sign an indemnity accepting responsibility for any photos taken of our child(ren) and any child whose parent didn't sign would not be allowed to take part in any event where there would be photography.

In other words, yes you can take photos but it's on your own heads if you all turn out to be paedophiles. 

 angrypcuser

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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