The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Guest on 14.03.14 11:26

@Doug D wrote:Poe:
 
‘I think that piece of footage was released for a reason’
 
Did it not help to create the  ‘explanation for the blood’ from M’s cut knees.

If that was the sole reason, why did they not edit out Gerry's swearing?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by jeanmonroe on 14.03.14 11:37

@Doug D wrote:Poe:
 
‘I think that piece of footage was released for a reason’
 
Did it not help to create the  ‘explanation for the blood’ from M’s cut knees.

No.

"explanation of blood in apartment' came very belatedly from GM (arguido statement "nosebleed") KM "Madeleine "nosebleed"

BUT 'nosebleed' explanation ONLY from McCanns AFTER blood sniffer dog had indicated.

They 'jumped the gun' there, imo.

Because we then have, AFTER the McCanns have cried 'blood found is from nosebleed from Madeleine' (when both made arguido/arguida) a previous occupant of 5A saying he had cut himself 'shaving'

So Mcanns 'claiming' any blood 'found' is from Madeleine 'nosebleed'.

BEFORE the 'shaving' man coming forward!

THEN McCanns saying blood 'found' is from shaving man having previously 'claimed' it was from Madeleine 'nosebleed'!

Weird, huh?

The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be ASKED AGAIN if Madeleine bled (WHY would the lawyer wish THAT?) To which he (GM) said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.
--- At around 22:50 the present interview was ended.
--- He (GM) says nothing further. After reading the document and finding it to be satisfactory, he confirms and signs it.
-------------------------

Processos Vol X
Page 2577

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5327
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Doug D on 14.03.14 11:48

Thanks Jean.
I can only find one reference to a cut knee in a much later blog, so not sure where I got that from. In the bewk it only talks about bruising from the aircraft steps.

Doug D

Posts : 2222
Reputation : 725
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Guest on 14.03.14 11:59

@jeanmonroe wrote:
BEFORE the 'shaving' man coming forward!


I feel for "the shaving man". I've seen doubts expressed on here about his bleeding for forty five minutes, but I suffer the same - I've either got just too much blood, or thin skin, or something. But I have a rather distinctive crease in my chin that just seems to invite shaving cuts, and more than once I've left the bathroom resembling a slaughterhouse.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by jeanmonroe on 14.03.14 12:01

"Other than her sleep problems, it is possible that Madeleine suffered from an illness, a hypothesis that was never confirmed. Immediately AFTER the discovery of traces of blood in the apartment the mother,(KM)  in the course of an interview with a Portuguese magazine, revealed that Madeleine had a nose bleed. But the bleeding could be associated with certain pathologies".

Truth of the Lie (chapter 4.)

As an 'aside'

What about THIS undeniable, BLATANT, 'NON-cooperation' example from UK Police/authorities with the PJ 'investigation!

Her parents have always insisted that Madeleine was in good health. The medical files, REQUESTED several times FROM Great Britain were NEVER sent to us These could have been deciding factors. Why didn’t we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. It’s deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative in this type of situation. In the course of the investigation, a doctor pointed out to us that Madeleine had a mark in her eye, described by some as a coloboma of the iris, which can be associated with other disorders, for example cardiac insufficiency. In spite of repeated requests to the British Medical Association, we were never able to confirm that hypothesis, a simple photo not being sufficient to establish a medical diagnosis.[/u]

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5327
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by jeanmonroe on 14.03.14 12:05

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:
BEFORE the 'shaving' man coming forward!


I feel for "the shaving man". I've seen doubts expressed on here about his bleeding for forty five minutes, but I suffer the same - I've either got just too much blood, or thin skin, or something. But I have a rather distinctive crease in my chin that just seems to invite shaving cuts, and more than once I've left the bathroom resembling a slaughterhouse.

But NOT, presumably, your blood BEHIND a sofa, in your house, pushed up against a wall!

As in apartment 5A, the McCanns 'occupied' where blood drops were 'indicated'

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5327
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Cristobell on 14.03.14 12:26

@ultimaThule wrote:
@canada12 wrote:What were the Tapas 9 plans for after dinner on the fateful night? We've spent so much time focusing on the actual dinner and the 10pm "alarm" raised by Kate.

We've all accepted as a truth that dinner was the only thing planned for that evening. What did the group do on prior nights after dinner? Did they go on to other activities?

Did anyone ask them what their plans were for later that night, assuming their dinner wasn't interrupted by an abduction? I don't recall any questions in that direction by the police, interviewers, etc? All thinking seems to have stopped with the "abduction". All planning seems to have been around the "abduction".
There are reports from Luz's locals to the effect that the group were seen at night sans offspring in Chaplins, which happens to have Skytv and shows UK sporting events for the benefit of holidaymakers and ex-pats.

There's an interview in which Kate claims the group were considering eating at the Millenium with their children on the 3rd, but there was some hesitation before she revealed the intended venue which made me wonder if the intention was for the adults to spend their penultimate night at one of Luz's restaurants,    

I have heard of those who go on all-inclusive holidays abroad and never leave the confines of the hotel/complex, but this was a half-board holiday in self-catering apartments with various facilities for adults and children spread over a fairly wide area and I find it curious that not one of the 9 adults took themselves off for a mooch around the town, viewing the architecture, observing the locals going about their everyday business, taking coffee or lunch at one of the numerous bars/restaurants, browsing the shops, or simply admiring the view from the seashore while reading a book in blissful solitude.

Other than purchasing foodstuffs from the Baptista, there are no accounts of any of them buying small items for their children or for themselves, no trips to the market for fresh, locally grown produce, no hunt for souvenirs to take home for friends/relatives or neighbours who may have been keeping an eye on their property or caring for pets in their absence.  In short, there's nothing which suggests this was anything like any of the holidays I've taken with friends and family.  

Were all of them on a tight budget and financially unable to indulge in any of those fripperies which, for me at least, make holidays enjoyable and provide tangible reminders of time spent out of the UK?

I also find it odd that, with the exception of their evening meet-ups, the Tapas 7 appear to have extended a bonhomie to each other which wasn't accorded to the McCanns, with the group breakfasting together at the Millenium and lunching in the Paynes' apartment while G&K were left to fend for themselves and their children in 5A. 

Could it be that the McCanns were regarded as only to be taken in small doses and that, for all Kate claimed the group were 'into each other', the Tapas 7 weren't into G&K?  If this were the case, why would they risk their necks for them?




I had a re-read of Jane's very long statement, and she confirms in the interview that the holiday was All Inclusive, so that may account for their staying within the resort.

Jane is quite insistent in her statement that she and Russell did not know Gerry and Kate very well. In fact, she gets herself into quite a tizz saying that Gerry was not her cup of tea, while trying to stress that she didn't dislike him. She and Russ were/are very close to the Paynes - they lived within walking distance of each other in Leicester and Matt was in the inner circle too having shared a flat with the Paynes.

The McCanns were on the periphery of the group. They didn't join the others for breakfast at the Millennium, nor did they meet up with them for lunch at the Paynes apartment. The McCanns, imo, did not seem to be as relaxed in their holiday as everyone else. The other fathers, Russell especially, were very hands on New Men, who shared responsibility for the kids equally with their wives. In fact Jane says, that the holiday was a break for her from the kids, and an opportunity for Russell to spend time with them, something that he reiterates in his own statement.

Whilst Kate makes light of Gerry's old fashioned ways and male chauvinism in her book, the holiday must have highlighted just how hard done by she was. I always thought Gerry's 'f*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself', was the result of having received a very stern lecture from the Mrs prior to departure. In fact, I would go so far as to say, there was simmering tension between the pair throughout the holiday, Kate was exhausted with the 3 toddlers, and Gerry was a selfish git.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Cristobell on 14.03.14 12:31

Poe wrote:
@Doug D wrote:Poe:
 
‘I think that piece of footage was released for a reason’
 
Did it not help to create the  ‘explanation for the blood’ from M’s cut knees.

If that was the sole reason, why did they not edit out Gerry's swearing?


I've always wondered if they have a mole in the camp. A member of this forum was sent private pictures of the McCanns in Holland, with the pair of them laughing and posing for the camera, Kate still wearing the same top she was wearing in a grief stricken interview that day.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Guest on 14.03.14 12:50

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7876-new-photos-of-the-mccanns#1794454

This is a topic about the photos to which Cristobell refers.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by suzyjohnson on 14.03.14 13:22

@Cristobell wrote:

The McCanns were on the periphery of the group.  They didn't join the others for breakfast at the Millennium, nor did they meet up with them for lunch at the Paynes apartment.    

Neither were they invited to the Paraiso beach restaurant on the 3rd.

If, as Cristobell says, GM was being selfish regards childcare, is that the reason Matthew offered to help Kate by checking at 9.30 pm on her behalf? 

Instead of looking at what has been accepted as true, I would like to ask what has been accepted as false that needs further consideration, I'm not convinced that MO was part of a deception, I think it's possible that his 9.30 pm check of the McCann children was genuine.

When MO listened at the window at 9 pm and reported that all was quiet, MO said in his statement, that he was surprised when GM set off immediately round to 5A to check for himself. 

Whatever GM was doing when he met JW (possibly whatever he did not have time to do) it is unlikely he would have been able to tell KM when he returned to the Tapas, before MO had offered to check 5A on her behalf. It may have been difficult for either of them to refuse MO's offer to check, and (provided of course the McCanns were staging a cover up) it may have suited them to have MO discover MM missing.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1043
Reputation : 169
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Mirage on 14.03.14 14:04

With a dearth of information on the nature of the relationships between the tapas group I find the following extract from MO's Rogatory at Leics on 9th April 2008 quite illuminating:

4078 "As you got to know Gerry and Kate how did you find them?"

Reply "Yeah, they're, erm, I mean, they're very similar sort of people. I mean, they were absolute, they absolutely loved their kids and there's no question to any of us that they had anything to do with this. Erm, they were appropriate, friendly, they had the same, I mean, we're all medics, so you've got that in common anyway. Erm, but, yeah, I mean, you see them on the cameras on TV and they're all sort of, they are all sort of very, very sort of focussed, very, you know, sort of (inaudible) but they know what they want and they can explain it, they are articulate. I mean, he's a, sort of an academic sort of medic, so, you know, it's sort of a competitive field where you compete for grants and staff and all that sort of thing, so you need to know what you're doing, you need to be sort of fairly on the ball and that's just how he is, I mean, it's just, if he's got a project, he's sort of very focussed and sort of fairly, fairly driven. Erm, but, absolutely, sort of great parents. I mean, most of my memory from Italy is of sort of, you know, I think, I think Madeleine may have had quite a bit of attention when she was younger. She was mostly in and out of sort of the apartment, didn't see much of her there. I saw more of Gerry when we were playing sort of football and things. But, yeah, you know, just a normal. I mean, he'd done quite a lot of sports, erm, on a Wednesday night particularly and when we went to the bar after we spent a lot of time talking about sort of, you know, could it have been slightly different could I have been a professional footballer, you know, this is how, I enjoyed it and how far I got and we talked about sort of what I'd done and there was quite a lot in common, erm, in common with that. Erm, Kate sort of initially was much sort of quieter but when you sort of talked to her she's, erm, sort of just friendly and sort of warm and just a normal person".
-----------------------------------------

Well, quite a lot to chew on here.

Remember, he's just been asked an open question about how he found K and G. His first response is that they are "similar sort of people". He does not qualify that so we are left wondering:  similar to each other, similar to him, similar to any or all of the other group members??

He then moves from the personal and  launches into a defence of their parenting skills and asserts they had nothing to do "with this". He does not qualify "this"

He next asserts that they were "appropriate". This is a catch-all, cover-any-eventuality word. Often used in conjunction with sexual misconduct at tribunals, for instance.

He continues "well, we're all medics so you've got that in common anyway." I find that snippet fascinating. It's as if he has run out of steam with a less than ringing endorsement of K and G. The bottom line seems to be they share the same profession. Also he changes the pronoun "we're all" to "so you've got"  something in common (= distancing. Thanks Hobs). The "anyway" strengthens the impression that their profession is all they really do have in common. Or maybe that is the impression he wishes to convey.

He then invites one to view the Mcs through the lens of a camera. "you see them on the cameras on TV" . This further feeds the impression of distancing himself as well as underlining all the unflattering aspects of their determined and focussed public personae. "They know what they want" he says.

Notice he hasn't yet mentioned either of them by name. He now talks specifically and at some length about G being competitive but still does not refer to him by name. He then defaults to defence mode again and says they are "great parents". He seems to want to qualify this non sequitur and suddenly mentions Italy where he says he thinks MM may have had quite bit of attention when she was younger. He is not relating first hand experience of their parenting it seems, as he uses "I think she may have had etc...." He reinforces this by mentioning MM was mostly in and out of the apartment and he didn't see much of her there (ie Italy). He now mentions Gerry by name for the first time and says he saw more of him when playing football "and things". He doesn't say what things. He follows with "yeah just a normal, I mean," He doesn't tell us in what respect he is using this word normal. He then talks of G doing quite lot of sports, "on a Wednesday night particularly". It is entirely unclear from this dotting around of time and location whether he is still talking about Italy. It is the impression given but weren't they in Italy for the wedding of FP and DP? If so there were surely not enough Wednesdays to make this assertion : "on a Wednesday particularly", nor indeed is this the case at PdL. So is he talking about Wednesdays at home in the UK? And if so, why would MO know/remember a detail like this from someone he seems not to know particularly. He now confides that he has spent "a lot of time" talking with GM in a bar - where or when this was is helpfully not pursued by Officer 4078 - and he continues, letting us into the secret of GM's unfulfilled ambition of being a footballer - he now speaks as Gerry's (first person) voice, saying: " could it have been slightly different, could I have been a professional footballer .... this is how much I enjoyed it and how far I got...."

This comes over to me as a mimic, getting a bit of irritation of GM's boasting out of his system. Remember, MO goes from referring to GM as "he" from the off. As soon as he gets a specific memory of Italy and the football he mentions him by name for the very first time. He now recaps the conversation they shared at the so far unspecified bar where he plays the part of GM in relaying what he said.

Finally he mentions Kate in his very last sentence:  Erm, Kate sort of initially was much sort of quieter but when you sort of talked to her she's, erm, sort of just friendly and sort of warm and just a normal person" (Warm is close)

MO is now asked by 4078 about MM and he talks briefly of playing Monsters and chasing games etc.

Then this caught my attention:

4078 "And you said the Wednesday you stayed later and you went for a drink after the meal at the Tapas?"

Reply "Yeah, we might have had one, erm, so about sort of half an hour or so later that we went back. But the reason, now we mention it, but I think that was on the Thursday, when we went to the table, I didn't sit next to Gerry, because we had this conversation, he said, you know, he'd bored the pants off me yesterday when we were talking about his sports (inaudible)".

4078 "Right".

Reply "I don't know why I brought that up, I don't know, it seemed to be sort of part of my thought".
------------------------------

I find this fascinating. Sounds like a brush off by GM. MO is alluding again to his previously floated idea of the sports conversation which has now gained a location (PdL) - albeit Wed unaccountably morphs into Thurs - and he offers it up as a reason GM didn't think he should sit next to him - "bored the pants off (you)" is the phrase he says GM uses. Then comes this odd  comment from MO: "I don't know why I brought that up"   Self -editing failure, as a guess. Hiding/obfuscating can be extremely stressful

Wed 2nd is the day no one talks about. But here is a real insight into some dynamics by that evening. And this follows MO leaving his sick wife and child earlier in the day - a child she might not have been able to take care of adequately if she had been throwing up or having diarrhoea. Yet it suddenly strikes him that this is a good time to accompany KH on an 8 mile round run up to the "erm junct" - outer environs of PdL and back. By coincidence both are suitably clad. So he agrees to go on this reckonable run (for a novice) at lunchtime even though he does not like running. I can just imagine GM waving them off and saying "Have a great time, you two! Don't worry about the childcare issues." - can't you?

So Officer 4078 bestirs herself at this point just long enough to say"Right" to this exemplar of deep confusion. No attempt to tease out the specifics of temporal lacunae. Just "Right"  Weepworthy isn't it? It makes you think what a shame it was that one of the interview recordings didn't work.

Now I do not have the Sword of Truth (the bewk) to hand but I would like to slot the episode of KM sleeping in the children's room into this clearing mist. She says herself that GM walked off without her to go to bed. I've forgotten what night she said that was.

ETA I've re-posted this on the Wed 2nd thread which I noticed after posting here.

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1722
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Guest on 14.03.14 14:54

From Mirage's post:

"...they were appropriate..."
Taken on its own, this snippet sets off all sorts of alarm bells for me. Combined with the f*** off ...no, I don't think he was comfortable with some of the McCanns' behavior at all.

"...sort of great parents..."
Wonderful - just what an "almost perfect" baby needs!

I have a mental image of all these dynamic, articulate doctors on an episode of ER. "Yeah, I sort of need you to kind of intubate him erm you know stat kind of thing"

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Guest on 14.03.14 15:52

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:
BEFORE the 'shaving' man coming forward!


I feel for "the shaving man". I've seen doubts expressed on here about his bleeding for forty five minutes, but I suffer the same - I've either got just too much blood, or thin skin, or something. But I have a rather distinctive crease in my chin that just seems to invite shaving cuts, and more than once I've left the bathroom resembling a slaughterhouse.
Remember that KHs good friend Amanda reported having seen the child bleed from the nose having put her finger in it. 
Pre-emptive explanation IMO

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Hobs on 14.03.14 16:59

sort of just friendly and sort of warm and just a normal person"

 He doesn't tell us kate is warm and friendly only that she is sort of warm and just friendly.

Sort of means similar to  or kind of.
Just is a minimising word downwards

He actually he tells us kate wasn't warm and was not what could be described as a normal person.

When normal is introduced it is marked as sensitive.
It implies they have been described as not normal at som point. Whether this is before the vacatuion or not i don't know, it certainly is applicable after the vacation when her language and demeanoe was off the charts weird.
It is  the same as when in a story starts it was a normal morning..., every child knows it will be anything byt.

Reply "Yeah, they're, erm, I mean, they're very similar sort of people. I mean, they were absolute, they absolutely I mean, they were absolute, they absolutely loved their kids and there's no question to any of us that they had anything to do with this


Very similar people to what?
he doesn't tell me so i can't assume.
he could be referring to them being narcissistic sociapths and similar to each other rather to the rest of us.
Notice here I mean, they were absolute, they absolutely loved their kids.We have self editing repeating absolute twice.
Absolutely is also a qualifier which when removed doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
he starts with past tence they were absolute, before he stops and moves to present tense they absolutely.
Here lies the problem, he reverts back to past tense with  loved their kids.
Do they no longer love their kids?
What changed?
The loss of Maddie.



no question to any of us that they had anything to do with this
Anything stated in the negative is sensitive
This is close , that is distancing.
They are close to the anything to do with Maddie's disappearance.

His statement reads as if he is struggling to find anything nice to say about them, especially gerry.
the only common links is they are all medics, gerry is focussed, sporty.
He focusses on the vacation in Italy rather than concentrating on PDL and how things were there telling us that is where most of his memory is.
Why a vacation so far back rather than the more recent one?
Why the need to distance himself from the mccanns in PDL even to not discussing memories of the trip and instead talking about everything but?

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

Hobs

Posts : 745
Reputation : 359
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

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

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by justathought on 14.03.14 17:39

Hobs
You seem very good at statement analysis. One thing I have thought about, given the "leaks" of stories to the press, quotes from a source close to the investigation/family etc. Is whether statement analysis could be used to try and ascertain the source of such leaks? Is the phraseology used often consistent for example, worded in such a way to point in a certain direction? Or is virtually  impossible due to there relative brevity,  that a journalist might change the original wording provided by the source etc?
Any views? Thanks in advance.

justathought

Posts : 141
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Hobs on 14.03.14 20:24

@justathought wrote:Hobs
You seem very good at statement analysis. One thing I have thought about, given the "leaks" of stories to the press, quotes from a source close to the investigation/family etc. Is whether statement analysis could be used to try and ascertain the source of such leaks? Is the phraseology used often consistent for example, worded in such a way to point in a certain direction? Or is virtually  impossible due to there relative brevity,  that a journalist might change the original wording provided by the source etc?
Any views? Thanks in advance.
Everyone has their own language style.
I think of it as a rhythm,they speak to their own beat.
The same with writing.
You will see people have their own writing style, a rhythm to their words.
It is noticed mostly with accents some are sing song such as welsh or jamaican, others are harsh like german and even regional accents have theiropwn beat some fast some slow.

In my job i learned fast to recognise typing styles as did a lot of my members, which is how members coming in with different names and ids get outed.
They write the same way using particular words or emoticons.
It is the same with speech, everyone has their favorite words and phrases which come to be associated with them.
I notice i use a lot of big words and phrases such as thus, therefore, it is interesting, to note and so on.

Speech writers and spokespeople are the same, they will have a bunch of go to words and if we see enough samples we can spot them and thus (there we go, one of mine) have a good chance of identifying the original writer.

There will always be a marked difference between the mccanns reading from a prepared script ot learned lines, and them being asked something off script or which catches them unawares.
It is there we notice their sudden inability to speak fluently and coherently.
We see lots of ums and errs and nonsense sounds, lots of pauses and self editing, lots of you knows (used to convince and convey any ideas the subject is trying to present without actually saying it)
Once they are asked something off script they are totally screwed and  resort to gibberish.
Something we have noticed in all the tapas 7  and mccann statements particularly the rogs.
They are out of their comfort zone, they are well off script and simply cannot think logically or coherently for themselves.

If a statement analyst has the original transcripts with questions and answers and plenty of samples we can see if it is  original from the subject or learned or read from a script.

We ask neutral questions about humdrum things to learn the subjects internal dictionary, how they speak when not stressed or feeling under pressure, their rhythm.
We learn what is their normal.
When we ask sensitive questions, we see what changes, what language is used.
Is it their own including slang  etc?
Do they reflect back the interviewers language?
Do they use words that are perhaps associated with LE or CPS or social workers indicating perhaps exposure/ contact with them at some point? (support network etc)

If they  are POI's or suspects in a serious case, listen to their attorneys and spokesmen and then compare them to the subjects and often you will see the subject parroting their attorney or spokesman. a good attorney will tell their client shut up say nothing to anyone.

With the mccanns you can invariably tell when a leaked statement has come from pinkie, it has his rhythm and his favorite words.
The mccanns have stayed unusually quiet and i suspect this is due to them being made arguidos once the PJ reopened the investigation.

Either it was automatically reinstated once the case was reopened as they were released from it the moment the case was shelved, they had it reapplied in order to give them protection, as witnesses they are compelled to tell the whole truth and co-operate fully on pain of jail, as arguidos they can lie and refuse to co-operate with no fear of penalty, or, their attornies requested arguidoship to protect their clients.

If they are arguidos it explains the silence since if i had the chance i would ask if they were now arguidos.Their respnse or none response would tell me all i needed to know.
Arguidoship means  a drop in donations to the fund and awkward questions especially with the libel trial going on.
Until the trial is resolved they want to avoid any mention of suspects or evidence or anything incriminating.

This would also explain all the leaks allegedly from NSY etc and possible sightings.

It is guaranteed when things are going badly for the mccanns we get a sighting or a new suspect.
I think since they know we know their routine they are trying to find a new way to get public sympathy.

I also know that the PJ will not discuss the case with anyone due to privacy laws  and NSY isn't going to anounce all the details and info to people who are suspects in the death of their daughter, even NSY can't ignore the dogs.

Therefore we have to ask, who gains from the leaks and it points straight to the mccanns and the pink princess.

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

Hobs

Posts : 745
Reputation : 359
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

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

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Guest on 14.03.14 20:39

Hobs, that is utterly fascinating. Thank you.  yes 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by worriedmum on 14.03.14 20:44

Mirage quoted

''Erm, but, absolutely.. . I mean, most of my memory from Italy is of sort of, you know, I think, I think Madeleine may have had quite a bit of attention when she was younger.'' unquote

???

worriedmum

Posts : 1710
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Hobs on 14.03.14 21:04

@worriedmum wrote:Mirage quoted

''Erm, but, absolutely.. . I mean, most of my memory from Italy is of sort of, you know, I think, I think Madeleine may have had quite a bit of attention when she was younger.'' unquote

???
I think is repeated twice making it sensitive.
Absolutely does not mean yes.
I think leaves it open for others to think otherwise.

He doesn't say she had a lot of attention when she was yopunger, only that she MAY have
The possible quite a bit of attention is linked to when she was younger, how much younger?
before the twins?
After the twins?
Why is this introduced into his statement?
Is this perhaps a subtle form of disparagement perhaps?
Maddie was a demanding child?
When she was older did she not get  quite as much attention?
What changed?

This is concerning and unexpected.
It is unusual, I won't say unheard of, for someone to disparage a victim or missing person especially a child.
Even where there is bad blood or anger between people, if one goes missing or has an accident or dies, everyone will find something positive to say about them, even is said person was a criminal or  bad in some way.
We see it all the time with serial killers as an example, neighbors will say they always said hello or would do this or that.

Guilty people on the other hand tend to subtly dispage the victim, in Maddies case we were told she was almost perfect, amost perfectly formed, had a temper, was a screamer and demanding.

One exception i have come across is the case recently of Heather Elvis who was having an affair with a married man before vanishing.
The married man sidney moorer and his wife tammy are strange to say the least.
Tammy vented on fb calling heather a pscho whore and many other things venting an intense rage and anger at heather, even though tammy and sidney had an 'open marriage' and tammy had a boyfriend as well. She called heather all sorts of vile names yet called her husband stupid.
THis was unexpected in that we expected subtle disparagement no screaming in your face rage.
Both were arrested on indecent behavior and kidnap charges which were then raised to include murder.
I suspect tammy was the instigator, she got hubby to call Heather and arrange a meet, tammy murdered heather and then she told hubby deal with it  and he dumped her remains.

I suspecthe has guilty knowledge or suspects what happened and may think Maddie brought it on herself.
A screaming child is enough to drive most parents up the wall.

I would love ti interview them all, have them all arrested at the same time and taken to separate stations with no cells phones and then i can  discuss things with them and listen real close.

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

Hobs

Posts : 745
Reputation : 359
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

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

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by ultimaThule on 14.03.14 21:18

@Hobs wrote:I would love to interview them all, have them all arrested at the same time and taken to separate stations with no cells phones and then i can discuss things with them and listen real close.
And how I would love to be behind the mirror while you 'discuss things' with them, Hobs, but it seems to me the chances of any police officers being able to enter into two-way conversations with the McCanns and their pals will end the moment the 'a' word is uttered as they'll lawyer up and it'll be 'no comment' from thereon in.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by petunia on 14.03.14 21:24

what a weird thing to say worriedmum.he knows, then he doesn't know because he then thinks Madeleine may have had a lot of attention when she was younger. she was almost 4 years old for goodness sake how much younger does he know or think she was to be getting this/that attention and from whom.

petunia

Posts : 485
Reputation : 70
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by petunia on 14.03.14 21:42

UT how many criminal court cases involving child/adult murder and neglect have we seen on the news over the years? and when they get found guilty,and the news are then allowed to show there interview with the police.I have yet to see one where they don't say no comment to almost if not every question the police ask them.

petunia

Posts : 485
Reputation : 70
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Hobs on 14.03.14 22:10

Unfortunately many cops believe the subject/ suspect is lying from the get go and thus doesn't actually listen to what is said.

The most common phrase i hear is they were lying cos their lips were moving.

The problem is, is this.
if you assume the subject is lying from the get go then you miss all the true lies, the lying by ommission, the  dropped pronoun, even the faked reality.
You miss all the red flags.

However, if you assume the subject is telling the truth about everything, then anything they say that is unexpected, the dropped pronoun, the temporal lacuna, the faked reality will stand out.
Once it stands out you can then ask for clarification and thus we get to the truth.

The perfect way to start any interview is what happened?

Ince they have done speaking, the next vital question must be, what happened next.

never ask compound questions since they can then pick and choose what to answer and you won't know what they were answering to.

Ask single questions

ask open ended questions, this allows the subject to pick and choose where to start.
Where they start is what is important to them.

Don't introduce new language, let the subject do that, it is a great way to learn what is on their maind at that moment, what is important to them.

If they introduce new language you can then use it in a question.

Don't give them answers via the question such as you did such and such at 9pm, they will answer yes or no even if it isn't the truth.

make lots of notes and ask for clarification, repeat questions phrased differently to see what, if anything changes.
Ask them say what happened backwards or at different starting points.

get them to write their statement down allowing one line through a word/phrase if they make a mistake so it can still be read ( it is amazing what can be learned from a crossed out word or phrase)

ask why they crossed something out.

most of all LISTEN to what they are actually saying, not what you think they are saying.

I use statement analysis daily when listening to news reading anything online , even tv ads are a good way to tune your ears in.

the downside is once learned it cannot be unlearned and never use it on your family and friends if you want to keep them (unless it is vitally important)

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

Hobs

Posts : 745
Reputation : 359
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

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

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by ultimaThule on 14.03.14 22:11

@Mirage wrote:With a dearth of information on the nature of the relationships between the tapas group I find the following extract from MO's Rogatory at Leics on 9th April 2008 quite illuminating:

4078 "As you got to know Gerry and Kate how did you find them?"

Reply "Yeah, they're, erm, I mean, they're very similar sort of people. I mean, they were absolute, they absolutely loved their kids and there's no question to any of us that they had anything to do with this. Erm, they were appropriate, friendly, they had the same, I mean, we're all medics, so you've got that in common anyway. Erm, but, yeah, I mean, you see them on the cameras on TV and they're all sort of, they are all sort of very, very sort of focussed, very, you know, sort of (inaudible) but they know what they want and they can explain it, they are articulate. I mean, he's a, sort of an academic sort of medic, so, you know, it's sort of a competitive field where you compete for grants and staff and all that sort of thing, so you need to know what you're doing, you need to be sort of fairly on the ball and that's just how he is, I mean, it's just, if he's got a project, he's sort of very focussed and sort of fairly, fairly driven. Erm, but, absolutely, sort of great parents. I mean, most of my memory from Italy is of sort of, you know, I think, I think Madeleine may have had quite a bit of attention when she was younger. She was mostly in and out of sort of the apartment, didn't see much of her there. I saw more of Gerry when we were playing sort of football and things. But, yeah, you know, just a normal. I mean, he'd done quite a lot of sports, erm, on a Wednesday night particularly and when we went to the bar after we spent a lot of time talking about sort of, you know, could it have been slightly different could I have been a professional footballer, you know, this is how, I enjoyed it and how far I got and we talked about sort of what I'd done and there was quite a lot in common, erm, in common with that. Erm, Kate sort of initially was much sort of quieter but when you sort of talked to her she's, erm, sort of just friendly and sort of warm and just a normal person".
-----------------------------------------

Well, quite a lot to chew on here.

Remember, he's just been asked an open question about how he found K and G. His first response is that they are "similar sort of people". He does not qualify that so we are left wondering:  similar to each other, similar to him, similar to any or all of the other group members??

He then moves from the personal and  launches into a defence of their parenting skills and asserts they had nothing to do "with this". He does not qualify "this"

He next asserts that they were "appropriate". This is a catch-all, cover-any-eventuality word. Often used in conjunction with sexual misconduct at tribunals, for instance.

He continues "well, we're all medics so you've got that in common anyway." I find that snippet fascinating. It's as if he has run out of steam with a less than ringing endorsement of K and G. The bottom line seems to be they share the same profession. Also he changes the pronoun "we're all" to "so you've got"  something in common (= distancing. Thanks Hobs). The "anyway" strengthens the impression that their profession is all they really do have in common. Or maybe that is the impression he wishes to convey.

He then invites one to view the Mcs through the lens of a camera. "you see them on the cameras on TV" . This further feeds the impression of distancing himself as well as underlining all the unflattering aspects of their determined and focussed public personae. "They know what they want" he says.

Notice he hasn't yet mentioned either of them by name. He now talks specifically and at some length about G being competitive but still does not refer to him by name. He then defaults to defence mode again and says they are "great parents". He seems to want to qualify this non sequitur and suddenly mentions Italy where he says he thinks MM may have had quite bit of attention when she was younger. He is not relating first hand experience of their parenting it seems, as he uses "I think she may have had etc...." He reinforces this by mentioning MM was mostly in and out of the apartment and he didn't see much of her there (ie Italy). He now mentions Gerry by name for the first time and says he saw more of him when playing football "and things". He doesn't say what things. He follows with "yeah just a normal, I mean," He doesn't tell us in what respect he is using this word normal. He then talks of G doing quite lot of sports, "on a Wednesday night particularly". It is entirely unclear from this dotting around of time and location whether he is still talking about Italy. It is the impression given but weren't they in Italy for the wedding of FP and DP? If so there were surely not enough Wednesdays to make this assertion : "on a Wednesday particularly", nor indeed is this the case at PdL. So is he talking about Wednesdays at home in the UK? And if so, why would MO know/remember a detail like this from someone he seems not to know particularly. He now confides that he has spent "a lot of time" talking with GM in a bar - where or when this was is helpfully not pursued by Officer 4078 - and he continues, letting us into the secret of GM's unfulfilled ambition of being a footballer - he now speaks as Gerry's (first person) voice, saying: " could it have been slightly different, could I have been a professional footballer .... this is how much I enjoyed it and how far I got...."

This comes over to me as a mimic, getting a bit of irritation of GM's boasting out of his system. Remember, MO goes from referring to GM as "he" from the off. As soon as he gets a specific memory of Italy and the football he mentions him by name for the very first time. He now recaps the conversation they shared at the so far unspecified bar where he plays the part of GM in relaying what he said.

Finally he mentions Kate in his very last sentence:  Erm, Kate sort of initially was much sort of quieter but when you sort of talked to her she's, erm, sort of just friendly and sort of warm and just a normal person" (Warm is close)

MO is now asked by 4078 about MM and he talks briefly of playing Monsters and chasing games etc.

Then this caught my attention:

4078 "And you said the Wednesday you stayed later and you went for a drink after the meal at the Tapas?"

Reply "Yeah, we might have had one, erm, so about sort of half an hour or so later that we went back. But the reason, now we mention it, but I think that was on the Thursday, when we went to the table, I didn't sit next to Gerry, because we had this conversation, he said, you know, he'd bored the pants off me yesterday when we were talking about his sports (inaudible)".

4078 "Right".

Reply "I don't know why I brought that up, I don't know, it seemed to be sort of part of my thought".
------------------------------

I find this fascinating. Sounds like a brush off by GM. MO is alluding again to his previously floated idea of the sports conversation which has now gained a location (PdL) - albeit Wed unaccountably morphs into Thurs - and he offers it up as a reason GM didn't think he should sit next to him - "bored the pants off (you)" is the phrase he says GM uses. Then comes this odd  comment from MO: "I don't know why I brought that up"   Self -editing failure, as a guess. Hiding/obfuscating can be extremely stressful

Wed 2nd is the day no one talks about. But here is a real insight into some dynamics by that evening. And this follows MO leaving his sick wife and child earlier in the day - a child she might not have been able to take care of adequately if she had been throwing up or having diarrhoea. Yet it suddenly strikes him that this is a good time to accompany KH on an 8 mile round run up to the "erm junct" - outer environs of PdL and back. By coincidence both are suitably clad. So he agrees to go on this reckonable run (for a novice) at lunchtime even though he does not like running. I can just imagine GM waving them off and saying "Have a great time, you two! Don't worry about the childcare issues." - can't you?

So Officer 4078 bestirs herself at this point just long enough to say"Right" to this exemplar of deep confusion. No attempt to tease out the specifics of temporal lacunae. Just "Right"  Weepworthy isn't it? It makes you think what a shame it was that one of the interview recordings didn't work.

Now I do not have the Sword of Truth (the bewk) to hand but I would like to slot the episode of KM sleeping in the children's room into this clearing mist. She says herself that GM walked off without her to go to bed. I've forgotten what night she said that was.

ETA I've re-posted this on the Wed 2nd thread which I noticed after posting here.
He (Matthew Oldfield) suddenly mentions Italy where he thinks MM may have had quite bit of attention when she was younger

Would this be the occasion of the Paynes' wedding in Italy when Madeleine was little more than a baby?   If so, why would the then childless Oldfield have noticed how much attention any of the other guests' children were receiving either from their parents or from others?

Could it be that on this ill-fated holiday at the Ocean Club he has seen at first hand Madeleine demanding more attention than he thinks should be her fair share?  Given that the McCanns did not breakfast with the others at the Millenium or lunch with them in the Paynes' apartment, and Madeleine attended every available session of her age-group kids club, it would seem unlikely he was in a position to judge whether or not she was an overly demanding child.

Or could it be that one, or both, of the McCanns or one of the other jolly campers told him that, since the birth of the twins, Madeleine wasn't getting the quality or quantity of attention she previously received as an only child of, according to Kate, doting parents?

There's a quote on another current thread (which I can't locate atm) relating to Dianne Webster's rog in which she talks about being at the Paraiso bar during the afternoon of 3 May and mentions 'the kid' not being with her/them.  As Webster has 2 grandchildren, why did she not use the plural 'kids'?   Could it have been that Madeleine was dumped on the Paynes after kids club ostensibly to play with their same age daughter while her parents concentrated their attentions on the twins?

Wednesday 2 May is the night on which Gerry, with his customary gallantry, abruptly announces at c11.50pm 'Right, I'm off to bed" and just as abruptly departs the Tapas Bar leaving his spouse with their pals, Mirage.  I'd like to know what preceded that announcement; was the spotlight Mr Tiny Tears demands he stands at all times temporarily turned off?  Were the group 'into each other' but not into him at that time? 

In any event, by the time Kate got back to 5A the wee one was snoring his head off and she elected to spend the night with her "peaceful, slumbering babies"... who, she was subsequently to realise, had been sedated by the abductor by way of rehearsal for the following night's performance.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we accept as true (that we should perhaps reconsider)?

Post by Mirage on 14.03.14 22:34

Thanks for that UT. I think the group offered nothing overtly in statements, nor KM in the  bewk, about 2nd May. But the information is there when you start looking isn't it? I mean, K and G would be very grateful for all the missing pieces of jigsaw we have already found to help them re-build the picture of that forgotten day.

My main pre-occupation at the moment as I have said a couple of times, is why MO took off for an 8 mile round run to the outskirts of PdL wnen he states he dislikes running. He actually says they ran " to the erm junct.... " he then self-edits. He doesn't mind running on sand so much, he confides, It's a bit Baywatch/ Californian. Was that a red herring or was he off road at times? Then he adds "..... she's quite a good runner and I quite enjoy it every now and again, but, if it's sort of unusual and you're sort of exploring a bit".

Well, I wonder what is unusual. Is it that he is running with KH when he knows he has a sick wife and child at the apartment? Is it unusual because no one else knows? Is it unusual because there is another purpose to this run? But I'm mainly wondering what he is exploring a bit.?

Now keeping this in mind, he mentions in his rog that Wed ( he then changes it to Thurs) night GM suggests he doesn't sit next to him. Due, he says, to GM saying he may have bored the pants off him (MO) the night before. with his sports chatter.

I would also like to know where that erm junct is.

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1722
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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