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 4 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 Guest on 12.03.14 12:04

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


Frankly if somebody, somewhere does get their kicks from looking at photos of a seven year old dressed up as a shepherd in a nativity play then I don't think there's much that can be done in mitigation.

The official line at my daughter's school (village primary, just sixty or so children) is take all the photos you want, but don't post them to social media.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 12.03.14 12:41

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


Frankly if somebody, somewhere does get their kicks from looking at photos of a seven year old dressed up as a shepherd in a nativity play then I don't think there's much that can be done in mitigation.

The official line at my daughter's school (village primary, just sixty or so children) is take all the photos you want, but don't post them to social media.

You can make schools into top security prisons but if somebody really wants a photo of a seven year old shepherd, they'll get one. It's just a huge shame that we had to miss out on a photograph of our king (who wanted to be a soldier cos they got swords).

Facebook and other social media sites weren't as popular when my son started school and, as he's now going to the "big" school, I don't know what the primary's current policy is. Hopefully someone with a modicum of common sense has figured out a way to keep everyone happy and safe.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by kevmack on 12.03.14 12:44

Having a 20yr old and having worked in the education field myself, I have seen the opposite ends of the paedo paranoia regarding photos.  When my daughter was at nursery and the first few years of primary school, there was no issues whatsoever, usually because the only people attending the events were parents, grandparents etc.  I don't think it was just Soham that changed attitudes, but the increasing use of digital photography and the internet, which was only becoming more widespread after 2002, and as another poster mentioned, the hysterics of the Daily Mail type media putting fear in peoples heads.

In my work capacity, yes, release forms were introduced probably about the same time (2002) and were required for everything and that continues to this day, and although there was a short period where cameras etc were banned from school activities, plays etc, common sense ultimately prevailed and it all returned to how it used to be.

Back to Nigel though.  The link that woofer(?) posted with the information about him seems a bit sparse and seems to suggest he was the one doing the videoing, though Russell's statement contradicts this and all Nigel's statement says is that they had a video on their computer of the holiday and wondered if it would be of any use, but as they didn't know how to upload it, the police had to visit them at home to access it.

So it's all a bit confusing...as is everything with this case.

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 12.03.14 14:33

@j.rob wrote:
@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.

Yes, especially as only an hour or so later the same child was put through her paces with Mummy and the Twins sitting on her bed yelling and clapping their hands

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.03.14 14:52

"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."

Kate very often wants us to believe a bullet-point list of 'facts'.

Kate belabours the point that MADELEINE WAS VERY TIRED.

Madeleine went to bed easily that evening because MADELEINE WAS VERY TIRED.

Second point on the bullet-list:

Kate carried Maddie back because KATE IS A CARING MUMMY.

Not only that, KATE IS A CARING CARRYING MUMMY.

Funny that the idea of 'carrying' came to the mind of someone who wants us to see her as 'caring'. Strikingly similar words.

And (in my opinion) the reason for the bullet-point list, is that every point on the list is a contradiction of reality.

- MADELEINE WAS VERY TIRED
- KATE IS A CARING MUMMY

is to hide

- MADELEINE WAS NOT TIRED AT ALL AS USUAL
- KATE IS A MUMMY WHO HAS DIFFICULTY DEALING WITH HER CHILD

I believe that these two points drove Kate to sedate Maddie and the twins.

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 Guest on 12.03.14 14:57

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:"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."

Kate very often wants us to believe a bullet-point list of 'facts'.

Kate belabours the point that MADELEINE WAS VERY TIRED.

Madeleine went to bed easily that evening because MADELEINE WAS VERY TIRED.

Second point on the bullet-list:

Kate carried Maddie back because KATE IS A CARING MUMMY.

Not only that, KATE IS A CARING CARRYING MUMMY.

Funny that the idea of 'carrying' came to the mind of someone who wants us to see her as 'caring'.  Strikingly similar words.

And (in my opinion) the reason for the bullet-point list, is that every point on the list is a contradiction of reality.

- MADELEINE WAS VERY TIRED
- KATE IS A CARING MUMMY

is to hide

- MADELEINE WAS NOT TIRED AT ALL AS USUAL
- KATE IS A MUMMY WHO HAS DIFFICULTY DEALING WITH HER CHILD

I believe that these two points drove Kate to sedate Maddie and the twins.

How and when had Kate learned that Ella had left the creche before Maddie did, to go to the beach?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by PeterMac on 12.03.14 15:10

@Portia wrote:
How and when had Kate learned that Ella had left the creche before Maddie did, to go to the beach?
Good point.
Tiny slips like this are going to be their downfall
And this is in Prosecution Exhibit KH 1, the book

____________________


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 whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.03.14 15:14

@PeterMac wrote:
@Portia wrote:
How and when had Kate learned that Ella had left the creche before Maddie did, to go to the beach?
Good point.
Tiny slips like this are going to be their downfall
And this is in Prosecution Exhibit KH 1, the book

While I'm not saying that I believe Kate's account of the afternoon to be truthful, Kate could have seen Ella when running past the group on the beach.

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 aiyoyo on 12.03.14 16:00

@Portia wrote:
How and when had Kate learned that Ella had left the creche before Maddie did, to go to the beach?

Thought she realised that when she spotted them at the Beach Restaurant while she was jogging at the beach.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Nina on 12.03.14 16:04

@j.rob wrote:
@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.
Snipped from your post j.rob,
"I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ and Jane had collected Ella. .....


So whilst taking her run along the beach she wonders this, Russ and Jane picking up Ella.........how did she know that Russ and Jane had picked up Ella from the creché?

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2626
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 12.03.14 16:13

@Nina wrote:
@j.rob wrote:
@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.
Snipped from your post j.rob,
"I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ and Jane had collected Ella. .....


So whilst taking her run along the beach she wonders this, Russ and Jane picking up Ella.........how did she know that Russ and Jane had picked up Ella from the creché?

Right.

And why the emphasis on Maddie possibly being hurt/alone/lonesome, as there could have been other children left at the creche?

Also: why hadn't the Mecs bothered to find out who would be in the creche that afternoon?

The way KH puts it in her truthfullest book, she appears to have been totally dumbfounded to discover that she and her daughter had without any warning or explanation, been left out of a complete happy beach party by their full holiday group. Nobody had even bothered to tell them! Isn't that extremely puzzling, for people so into each other allegedly?

What is she really telling her readers?

"I was left out; I felt left out"?

And this feeling at a discovery which must have come as quite a shock, is transferred to little Maddie, also left out, but totally unaware of that amazing slight until helpfully told by her caring mother?

Why the need to hurt Maddie by making her feel left out?

No doubt all these points of interest will be duly revealed in The Bewk 2.0 in due course

As will be the question, what urgent business came up that afternoon that caused 'the rest of the holiday group', all their children included, to isolate themselves from the Mecs, going to the beach where they were out of earshot and could see well in advance whoever was coming towards them?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 12.03.14 16:55

By saying that she carried Maddie from the Tapas back to the apartment also gives a reason for why there was no scent for the sniffer dogs to follow later.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by aquila on 12.03.14 17:02

dantezebu wrote:By saying that she carried Maddie from the Tapas back to the apartment also gives a reason for why there was no scent for the sniffer dogs to follow later.

That's a really interesting point dantezebu.

One would have thought the sniffer dogs would direct their handlers at least to the creche and the play area.

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 noddy100 on 12.03.14 17:05

"I went straight up to her' sounds like she is trying to convince us that M was her priority

noddy100

Posts : 696
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2013-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by Guest on 12.03.14 17:05

@aquila wrote:
dantezebu wrote:By saying that she carried Maddie from the Tapas back to the apartment also gives a reason for why there was no scent for the sniffer dogs to follow later.

That's a really interesting point dantezebu.

One would have thought the sniffer dogs would direct their handlers at least to the creche and the play area.

Didn't dr Amaral show particular interest in the creche as a possible last venue for the child?

This would fit in with the child being carried away from it

BTW: where was the rest of the holiday group when this eating and carrying all allegedly took place? Still at the beach?
If so, who could then corroborate KHs story?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.03.14 17:06

@noddy100 wrote:"I went straight up to her' sounds like she is trying to convince us that M was her priority

It demonstrates the bullet-point KATE IS A CARING MUMMY.

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 Guest on 12.03.14 17:09

@noddy100 wrote:"I went straight up to her' sounds like she is trying to convince us that M was her priority

yes


So where was the proud Dad, when this supposedly happened?

He HAD already missed the wanness and the pallor of his little daughter, hadn't he?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by PeterMac on 12.03.14 17:32

@Portia wrote:
@noddy100 wrote:"I went straight up to her' sounds like she is trying to convince us that M was her priority
yes
So where was the proud Dad, when this supposedly happened?
He HAD already missed the wanness and the pallor of his little daughter, hadn't he?

A caring medically qualified father who does not realise that his daughter, who at exactly 14:29 had been bright and cheerful was now totally exhausted,
and so close to collapse that she could not even walk the last 120 metres ?
So it takes his part time GP wife to march straight up to her (how do you do this at a table with a family group. - On a Parade square, perhaps, but you march up to the table, not to an individual . . . )
The suicide note (Prosecution Document Exhibit KH 1 refers) is a mine of information.
I wonder if G is entirely happy with K's version of events, or whether he would have preferred to proof read the book himself.

Dreadful though the thought is, perhaps we should all re-read the relevant chapter (5 since you ask), now that we have so much more information that we had in 2011.

____________________


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 Nina on 12.03.14 17:40

Then she went even more a caring Mummy, and carefully removed the hair bead from Madeleine's hair, no tugging of the short hairs that pull and make a little girl squirm, a bit like Amelie did on the video of the kitchen when Daddy Gerry was coming home from work, and Mummy Kate ignored it, but Daddy Gerry did notice to be fair to him.
I had wondered whether the tension between the McCann parents re Gerry paying too much attention to the quiz mistress, and little to his wife resulting in the separate bed stomp was why they weren't invited to the all together at the Praiso. All the children would have loved that. It would have been a highlight of the whole sad week.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2626
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.03.14 17:44

@Nina wrote:
I had wondered whether the tension between the McCann parents re Gerry paying too much attention to the quiz mistress, and little to his wife resulting in the separate bed stomp was why they weren't invited to the all together at the Praiso. All the children would have loved that. It would have been a highlight of the whole sad week.

This is what I believe. I believe that they've done their best to hide and marital problems that they might have had that week, because it would raise suspicions.

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 Guest on 12.03.14 17:58

@Portia wrote:
@aquila wrote:
dantezebu wrote:By saying that she carried Maddie from the Tapas back to the apartment also gives a reason for why there was no scent for the sniffer dogs to follow later.

That's a really interesting point dantezebu.

One would have thought the sniffer dogs would direct their handlers at least to the creche and the play area.

Didn't dr Amaral show particular interest in the creche as a possible last venue for the child?

This would fit in with the child being carried away from it

BTW: where was the rest of the holiday group when this eating and carrying all allegedly took place? Still at the beach?
If so, who could then corroborate KHs story?

Yes the rest of the group were in the Paradiso, (except DP who was apparently also in 5a at 5.00 with KM and GM  big grin )
IMO there would be nobody to corroborate KMs story as Madeleine wasn't in the Tapas and KM didn't carry her back.
She just needed a reason why the dogs wouldn't at least follow the scent there.
She didn't know at the time that she would get away with just giving the dogs the towel and blanket to sniff.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by j.rob on 12.03.14 18:15

I think all these details about the days leading up to Madeleine's 'disappearance' are a desperate attempt to place Madeleine in the kids' club when she might have been somewhere else. And not having the lovely, jolly time that the McCann parents claim she was having. If Madeleine was not in the kids' club for the last day or the final days, then I would imagine that the McCanns would want to make sure that the other children (Ella in particular as it seems they were friends) in the dark in terms of Madeleine not being where she should have been.

Hence Russ or Jane took Ella to the beach on the Thursday afternoon, in the event that Ella had subsequently been questioned on whether she had seen Madeleine in the creche that afternoon, she would find it more difficult to recollect as she either wasn't there at all, or she was taken out early.

On the final morning before Madeleine's disappearance, Kate writes how (page 65): "After preparing some lunch, I went with Fiona to pick up Madeleine and Scarlett, who was in the adjoining Baby Club, taking her on the quicker route through grounds of the Ocean Club, which she hadn't yet discovered."

This is a grammatically clumsy sentence in which Madeleine seems to disappear from the proceedings. This is reinforced by the subsequent sentence in which Kate claims: "Fiona and Dave had been windsurfing that morning and had seen Madeline's group, who had gone down to the beach for their 'mini-sail' activity. We heard later that they'd been on a speedboat as well as a dinghy. Fiona told me she had spotted Ella there but not Madeleine."

Well, that would be presumably because Madeleine wasn't actually there, imo! And Fiona is not prepared to say that she saw her when she obviously could not have done, imo.

Still, it was a lot for Ella to fit in during one afternoon - speedboating, dinghy ride at the kids' club and then being taken out of the club early to go to the beach where Kate spotted her and the rest of the group, apparently, just after her tennis session finished at 4.30pm, when she embarked on her jog on the beach. 

I guess it was important for Kate to make sure that she could claim that she was seen by the rest of the group shortly after 4.3pm on Thursday.

Interestingly, the McCann children were also separated from the other children on Tuesday afternoon, according to Kate's book, as the McCanns took their children to the beach, although they claim they dropped them back to the various kids' clubs for the last hour and a half. Nevertheless, this could be enough change to cause confusion in the event that Ella and other children (or indeed adults) were questioned about Madeleine's whereabouts on the final days. 

On Tuesday evening, Russell did not join the adults for dinner as his daughter was apparently unwell.

Wednesday was, according to Kate, the usual routine for the children. On this evening Rachael did not join the adults for dinner as she was feeling unwell. 

On Thursday afternoon, the McCann children are also separated from the other children as Gerry, allegedly, supervised tea for Madeleine and the twins at the Tapas area at 5.30pm. Whereas all the others, according to Kate, had decided to freed their kids at the beach-side restaurant, the Paraiso.


Again, this separating of the friends (which the average four year old on a family holiday would most certainly make a lot of fuss about) would create some distance and confusion in terms of where exactly Madeleine was at any particular time. And it would make it difficult for the other children (and indeed adults too) to give accurate first hand witness accounts of when they last saw Madeleine and what she was doing. It also served to place Gerry with Madeleine at the tapas bar at 5.30pm on Thursday, allegedly.

This is all such an elaborate plot.  It is spectacularly difficult to understand just how and why these adults would enmesh themselves in what is clearly a massively deceptive web of half-truths, evasions, alibis and double-bluffs.

All in my opinion, obiously!

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 12.03.14 19:24

Kate McCann's downfall IS that bewk. The one thing she shouldn't have done. For me it's the bewq more than anything else that tells us Kate's true level of cunning (or 'lack of cunning' to be precise). The bewq is, as many people here imply, a kind of delayed suicide note. It aims to dictate reality and to fix (in a kind of quiet panic) the glaring inconsistencies in their story so far. Along with others here my my start point is to take the opposite of what she tells us as closer to truth.

____________________
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 aquila on 12.03.14 19:32

If I recall correctly, in the contempt of court proceedings against Tony Bennett, Ms Martorell said that she hadn't read the book.

Many people from this forum turned up. Perhaps one of them could confirm this.

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 Guest on 12.03.14 19:33

@PeterMac wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@noddy100 wrote:"I went straight up to her' sounds like she is trying to convince us that M was her priority
yes
So where was the proud Dad, when this supposedly happened?
He HAD already missed the wanness and the pallor of his little daughter, hadn't he?

A caring medically qualified father who does not realise that his daughter, who at exactly 14:29 had been bright and cheerful was now totally exhausted,
and so close to collapse that she could not even walk the last 120 metres ?
So it takes his part time GP wife to march straight up to her (how do you do this at a table with a family group. - On a Parade square, perhaps, but you march up to the table, not to an individual . . . )
The suicide note (Prosecution Document Exhibit KH 1 refers) is a mine of information.
I wonder if G is entirely happy with K's version of events, or whether he would have preferred to proof read the book himself.

Dreadful though the thought is, perhaps we should all re-read the relevant chapter (5 since you ask), now that we have so much more information that we had in 2011.

Funny that you mention it

It occurred to me too

I cleaned out my bookshelf, finding it as I'd left it, with the big stain that -aside from the other aspects- kept me from reading it when I first bought it from Amazon for euro 1

Opening it, reading one or two sentences, I had to stop again

What an awful piece of trash &gibberish it remains, even in hindsight, Clarrie & Antonella rolled into one

But what, whoa: if you can do it, so can I!

I'll get back up my attic and retrieve it yet again. See where it all ends, so to speak.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 4 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