"Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

by **Hobs** 03.08.14 3:11

Isabel Duarte, the civil lawyer in Portugal who acts for the McCann family in their libel action against Amaral, says it's not a popular fight.

“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral.
Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/panorama-maddie.html

Oh dear, the truth is out all thanks to their lawyer who clearly doesn't understand keep your mouth shut and say nothing.

Right there, she has told the world and their dog kate and gerry mccann killed their own daughter.

Can you see it?

"Everyone believes that

"I AM DEFENDING A FATHER AND MOTHER THAT HAVE KILLED THEIR DAUGHTER AND GOT RID OF THE CORPSE"

Not they have allegedly or supposedly killed their daughter,

Not, who it is claimed killed their daughter.

Not, covered up the accidental death of their daughter

Isabel duarte has stated it as a fact they killed their daughter.

She has stated it as a fact they got rid of the corpse.

This is a strong reliable statement with no qualifiers (additional words that, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence)

No minimising words such as harmed or hurt.

She hasn't minimised it or softened it, she has told it as the truth.

From the mouth of their own lawyer, kate and gerry mccann killed their daughter and disposed of her corpse.

Can we expect them to be suing her for her statement which clearly indicates Maddie is dead and will thus hinder the search and stop people looking for an alive Maddie, since, this is what they claim Dr. Amaral did, when he said she had an accidental death (giving them the benefit of the doubt)

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when their very own attorney let that little marble leak shutup

You couldn't make it up

by Gaggzy 03.08.14 3:37

And now the cheeky sea-bass tards are planning on suing The Times newspaper!!!

In my opinion, when their fall comes, it will be fast and very hard.

by Guest 03.08.14 7:31

Hobs wrote:This is a strong reliable statement with no qualifiers (additional words that, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence)

No minimising words such as harmed or hurt.

She hasn't minimised it or softened it, she has told it as the truth.

From the mouth of their own lawyer, kate and gerry mccann killed their daughter and disposed of her corpse.

Actually Hobs this means very little.

The "qualifier" is "Everyone believes that".

She's just told the truth about what everyone believes. She has not stated her own position.

She has not said Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine.

It is interesting admission about public feeling though and perhaps the McCanns won't be happy with even this.

by MrsC 03.08.14 7:36

Hobs wrote:

Isabel Duarte, the civil lawyer in Portugal who acts for the McCann family in their libel action against Amaral, says it's not a popular fight.

“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral.
Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/panorama-maddie.html

Oh dear, the truth is out all thanks to their lawyer who clearly doesn't understand keep your mouth shut and say nothing.

Right there, she has told the world and their dog kate and gerry mccann killed their own daughter.

Can you see it?

"Everyone believes that

"I AM DEFENDING A FATHER AND MOTHER THAT HAVE KILLED THEIR DAUGHTER AND GOT RID OF THE CORPSE"

Not they have allegedly or supposedly killed their daughter,

Not, who it is claimed killed their daughter.

Not, covered up the accidental death of their daughter

Isabel duarte has stated it as a fact they killed their daughter.

She has stated it as a fact they got rid of the corpse.

This is a strong reliable statement with no qualifiers (additional words that, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence)

No minimising words such as harmed or hurt.

She hasn't minimised it or softened it, she has told it as the truth.

From the mouth of their own lawyer, kate and gerry mccann killed their daughter and disposed of her corpse.

Can we expect them to be suing her for her statement which clearly indicates Maddie is dead and will thus hinder the search and stop people looking for an alive Maddie, since, this is what they claim Dr. Amaral did, when he said she had an accidental death (giving them the benefit of the doubt)

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when their very own attorney let that little marble leak

You couldn't make it up

Surely the underlined words above are the operative words here? Not that I know anything about anything!! titter

by **Tony Bennett** 03.08.14 8:34

BlueBag wrote:
Hobs wrote:This is a strong reliable statement with no qualifiers (additional words that, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence)

No minimising words such as harmed or hurt.

She hasn't minimised it or softened it, she has told it as the truth.

From the mouth of their own lawyer, kate and gerry mccann killed their daughter and disposed of her corpse.
Actually Hobs this means very little.

The 'qualifier' is "Everyone believes that..."

She's just told the truth about what everyone believes. She has not stated her own position.

She has not said Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine.

@ BlueBag @ Hobs

Whilst I am a great admirer of Hobs' posts on this forum - she has shed a great deal of light on some strange utterances that have been made in this case - and whilst I recently heavily criticised BlueBag for his attempt to 'whitewash' Gerry's 'I am not going to comment on that' in response to being asked whether he already knew Robert Murat - on this particular occasion I think that BlueBag's point is well made.

There is a clear qualifier in Isobel Duarte's statement.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 03.08.14 8:51

"Everyone believes...." wow

Everyone?

Even Clarence Mitchell?

David Cameron?

DCI Redwood?

Kate's mum?

Kate's dad?

Gerry's entire family?

The twins?

All the residents of Rothley?

All the staff at Glenfield Hospital?

All the child neglect supporters on JATYK?

Lorraine Kelly?

Oprah Winfrey?

Piers Morgan?

Isabel Duarte said "Everyone believes", not just "the minority that criticises Kate and Gerry" but "EVERYONE"

That's quite a lot of people, Isabel, that believe Kate and Gerry killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.

Who needs enemies when you've got a lawyer like that?

by suzyjohnson 03.08.14 12:02

BlueBag wrote:
Hobs wrote:This is a strong reliable statement with no qualifiers (additional words that, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence)

No minimising words such as harmed or hurt.

She hasn't minimised it or softened it, she has told it as the truth.

From the mouth of their own lawyer, kate and gerry mccann killed their daughter and disposed of her corpse.

Actually Hobs this means very little.

The "qualifier" is "Everyone believes that".

She's just told the truth about what everyone believes. She has not stated her own position.

She has not said Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine.

It is interesting admission about public feeling though and perhaps the McCanns won't be happy with even this.

The McCanns might not be unhappy with this statement though, after all they want to convince the Lisbon court that Amaral has turned the whole of Portugal against them and consequently hindered the search for their daughter. So, in that sense, Isabel Duarte is backing them up.

by Hongkong Phooey 03.08.14 12:29

Redwoods statement is the most important of that article.
"We are seeking to bring closure to the case. That is our ultimate objective.”Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood

Not seeking justice, not seeking to catch the perpetrators just closing the case.

by Cristobell 03.08.14 13:07

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Redwoods statement is the most important of that article.
"We are seeking to bring closure to the case. That is our ultimate objective.”Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood

Not seeking justice, not seeking to catch the perpetrators just closing the case.

It is strange how we all interpret things differently.

Closure is pretty final. Its an end to speculation. The word 'justice' is emotive and suggests a campaign or mission, it could be read as a quest for revenge, a siding with the pressure groups.

From a justice perspective, the only way that can be achieved is through closure. His use of the word 'closure' satisfies all camps, closure for the grieving family and justice for the campaigners.

by aiyoyo 03.08.14 15:22

What about this interpretation?

Everyone believes that I am defending (that's the qualifier - that ID is defending)

A father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse (that's ID own statement)

The hypothesis in the public conscious is that Maddie died of an accident inside the Hol. apartment, and that her parents got rid of the corpse and simulated abduction.

Apart from ID, no other person has ever made a public statement that the mcs killed their daughter.

by **PeterMac** 03.08.14 16:14

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:"Everyone believes...."

Everyone?
Change it from "killed" to "know or reasonably suspect that Madeleine is dead" and you may get the following list

Even Clarence Mitchell ? Very probably KNOWS
David Cameron? Very probably SUSPECTS
DCI Redwood? Very probably KNOWS
Kate's mum? Very probably KNOWS
Kate's dad? Very probably KNOWS
Gerry's entire family? Very probably KNOW
The twins? Will very probably come to the conclusion sooner or later
All the residents of Rothley? Very probably SUSPECT
All the staff at Glenfield Hospital? Very probably SUSPECT

All the child neglect supporters on JATYK? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything
Lorraine Kelly? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Oprah Winfrey? Very probably SUSPECTS
Piers Morgan? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Isabel Duarte said "Everyone believes", not just "the minority that criticises Kate and Gerry" but "EVERYONE"

That's quite a lot of people, Isabel, that believe Kate and Gerry ~~killed their daughter~~ know or suspect that she is dead, and got rid of the corpse.

Who needs enemies when you've got a lawyer like that?

by aiyoyo 03.08.14 16:22

PeterMac wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:"Everyone believes...."

Everyone?
Change it from "killed" to "know or reasonably suspect that Madeleine is dead" and you may get the following list

Even Clarence Mitchell ? Very probably KNOWS
David Cameron? Very probably SUSPECTS
DCI Redwood? Very probably KNOWS
Kate's mum? ~~Very probably KNOWS~~ knew knew (she was there, she told us so)
Kate's dad? ~~Very probably KNOWS~~ knew knew
Gerry's entire family? Very probably KNOW
The twins? Will very probably come to the conclusion sooner or later
All the residents of Rothley? Very probably SUSPECT
All the staff at Glenfield Hospital? Very probably SUSPECT

All the child neglect supporters on JATYK? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything
Lorraine Kelly? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Oprah Winfrey? Very probably SUSPECTS
Piers Morgan? Too stupid to SUSPECT anything not on the autocue
Isabel Duarte said "Everyone believes", not just "the minority that criticises Kate and Gerry" but "EVERYONE

That's quite a lot of people, Isabel, that believe Kate and Gerry ~~killed their daughter~~ know or suspect that she is dead, and got rid of the corpse.

Who needs enemies when you've got a lawyer like that?

by **Hobs** 03.08.14 18:20

As an addendum, I will say embedded is the statement A father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.

There is nothing unequivocal about those 15 words.

It is not open to misinterpretation.

It cannot be misunderstood.

The meaning is clear.

She doesn't use a minimising word instead of kill

She tells us killed : caused the death of, deprived of life.

She doesn't tell us someone else killed.

She doesn't tell us father and mother who have lost their daughter.

She doesn't tell us father and mother who have hurt their daughter.

She doesn't tell us father and mother who have harmed their daughter.

She doesn't tell us father and mother who have hurt their daughter.

She doesn't even tell us they didn't conceal her corpse.

She doesn't allow for someone else to have disposed of her corpse.

She plainly and clearly tells us her father and mother killed Maddie and disposed of her corpse.

The brain knows the truth and seeks to tell it as lying is stressful.

What i don't know is, if kate and gerry have admitted the truth to their attorney in order for her to prepare for the case and not allow them to walk into a trap of self incrimination, or, if she suspects the truth but due to client confidentiality cannot go the the PJ and say yep they did it etc.

As we saw in a previous appearance she couldn't say Maddie was abducted as a fact, she could only say this was what the parents told her

What they can do is advise their client and tell them to sit down and say nothing to anyone, make them work to find the proof rather than giving it to them on a plate.

They do have options, as far as i understand, that they can withdraw from a case if they know their client did the crime as charged and if placed on the witness stand will testify they didn't and perjure themselves.
They cannot knowingly allow their client to lie through their teeth on the stand as they themselves risk sanctions up to and including being kicked off the bar.

Many defence attornies in America will have their client do a polygraph to see what is revealed (truth or deception) and based on what the results are allow their client to take an LE one or to tell their client do not take it as you will fail spectacularly.

It is also not unknown for suspects to polyshop ( the ramseys, sean adkins) they go from poly to poly laying down the rules and restriction on what can and cannot be asked and then gagging the polygrapher so they cannot reveal anything including what questions were asked and more importantly what they failed on.

As we saw with the ramseys, they claimed to have passed but we do not know what questions were asked or if they passed all or only some of the questions ( lying by ommission)

As we also saw with kate who said she would take a poly, and, when taken up on the offer, promptly set a whole bunch of demands and restrictions making it impossible for the test to be administered.

An innocent person would pass a poly ( assuming the polygrapher is well trained and asks the right questions)
A guilty person will likely fail a poly which in kate's case isn't going to help their case and will point the finger straight at them

Polys are fallible, the right question s need to be asked.

A paedohile accused of molestation could pass a poly if asked the question " Did you molest little Polly"
He replies no and passes.
He did molest Polly, however, in his personal dictionary, it wasn't molestation, he instead thought of it as tickling, cuddling, holding.

This is why statement analysis is so reliable, we use only the subjects own words to phrase the questions.

For example:

Did you touch Polly?

Yes.

How did you touch Polly?

I tickled her.

Where did you tickle Polly? ( the subject has introduced tickle into his statement so we can now use it in our questions)

How do you tickle Polly?

Subject describes/ demonstrates what his definition of ticking is.

Where did you tickle Polly?

On her chest

Was it over her clothes? and so on so you learn the subjects personal dictionary, what words and actions mean to him (often not the same as they mean to us plus they invariably minimise.)

If i were to ask you what the word BOY meant to you, you would all instantly have a different idea.
For one it could be a new born baby, another it could mean a toddler, another a teen, another, a young man, another one of a group or team, another it could mean a soldier (support our boys)

Each of us would have a definition based on our own personal dictionary.

This is the advantage of SA over a poly.

A polygrapher can ask set questions which allows the subject to be deceptive as what the polygrapher defines as a word may not be the same as the subject ( the polygrapher calls it molestation, the subject calls it tickling so he will pass because in his mind it isn't molestation)

by Guest 03.08.14 18:42

Hobbs,

You can't take half a sentence and pretend it's a full sentence.

Context is everything.

by **Hobs** 03.08.14 18:46

BlueBag wrote:Hobbs,

You can't take half a sentence and pretend it's a full sentence.

Context is everything.

That it is, however she still embedded it in her statement.

I wonder if the mccanns will be suing her for making such a statement and thus hindering the search for their daughter.

They are siung Dr. Amaral for saying the same thing except he allowed for it to be an accidental death and they panicked and covered it up.

Isabel duerte doesn't even allow for it to be accidental.

by Guest 03.08.14 18:54

Hobbs,

She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.

The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).

by aiyoyo 04.08.14 6:54

BlueBag wrote:Hobbs,

She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.

The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).

I agree with Hobs that the embedded line of words is nonetheless hers and hers alone.
No one else had said it in the public.
She was not quoting people's exact belief as if she heard it from somewhere or someone.

She was telling us her belief; a belief she believes that people believed same.
It was her belief that she projected onto other people, believing people believed that.
She was not mirroring people's belief; as the words the mccanns killed their daughter had never before been introduced into the public orbit.

She could have used load of other words to convey people's belief that Maddie died under the watch of her parents, but she chose to use the word kill.

She very probably suspects that to be the truth of the matter, and plays a very sly game to hint to the mcs she's defending the indefensible and should they lose don't blame her.
She probably regrets she took the case hence was trying to pre-empt the defeat.
Or there was a madness to her strategy.

by Hongkong Phooey 04.08.14 9:21

aiyoyo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Hobbs,

She is clearly saying this is what other people believe. It is not a statement of her own belief.

The fact she said it whoever is a very interesting admission about public opinion and may not go down well (unless its some kind of subtle move).

I agree with Hobs that the embedded line of words is nonetheless hers and hers alone.
No one else had said it in the public.
She was not quoting people's exact belief as if she heard it from somewhere or someone.

She was telling us her belief; a belief she believes that people believed same.
It was her belief that she projected onto other people, believing people believed that.
She was not mirroring people's belief; as the words the mccanns killed their daughter had never before been introduced into the public orbit.

She could have used load of other words to convey people's belief that Maddie died under the watch of her parents, but she chose to use the word kill.

She very probably suspects that to be the truth of the matter, and plays a very sly game to hint to the mcs she's defending the indefensible and should they lose don't blame her.
She probably regrets she took the case hence was trying to pre-empt the defeat.
Or there was a madness to her strategy.

The article is over two years old and I think there's a big deal being made about nothing, she is generalising that Amaral has a lot of support and she feels alone in believing the McCanns story. This part is pretty clear im my view:-

“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Because she feels alone then it is fairly obvious this is because everyone ELSE thinks along the lines of Amaral (even though killing is never mentioned this could possibly be a translation 'bug').

by kimHager 04.08.14 10:15

If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that

by kimHager 04.08.14 10:18

And I'm not in any way defending the mccanns they are guilty in my eyes. I am just stating for the right to attorney client privilege I wouldn't want someone who is defending me to go talking with anyone else about it

by Hongkong Phooey 04.08.14 10:32

kimHager wrote:If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that

I agree, the whole statement is a bit odd. Makes you wonder just how much of the case she is willing to discuss with friends, I certainly wouldn't be happy if I was in that position.

by Guest 04.08.14 11:29

I'm with Hobs on this.

First Dr Duarte links the McCanns with the theory that they killed Madeleine and then re-inforces this by not saying that her friends are wrong or mistaken.

She's a lawyer. She plays with words for a living. She knew exactly what she was saying. In my opinion anyway.

by Claire25 04.08.14 11:35

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
kimHager wrote:If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that
I agree, the whole statement is a bit odd. Makes you wonder just how much of the case she is willing to discuss with friends, I certainly wouldn't be happy if I was in that position.

Exactly. Completely contrived for the benefit of the libel trial IMO. Why would she want to go round chatting about it out of work, you'd think she'd be sick of it.

by Justformaddie 04.08.14 11:46

Probably pissed off her friends are more switched on than her. Iirc, that interview was more of a pity me, trying to help a family that her friends believe are guilty IMO

by Guest 04.08.14 12:14

Poe wrote:I'm with Hobs on this.

First Dr Duarte links the McCanns with the theory that they killed Madeleine and then re-inforces this by not saying that her friends are wrong or mistaken.

She's a lawyer. She plays with words for a living. She knew exactly what she was saying. In my opinion anyway.

Three sentences quoted in a BBC item about the case and you know what she is not saying?

Perhaps you have the full context of this snippet?

by tasprin 04.08.14 12:49

Definitely a contrived pity-party statement (probably with the McCanns knowledge and consent):

Imagine Isabel Martorell or Adam Tudor making this statement:

“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

or

“I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case because everyone believes in Alan Rusbridger. Everyone believes that I am defending an oil company that have killed and injured many people by disposing of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast.”

by flaxyard 04.08.14 13:06

Petermac,

Add to your list -

Jeremy Paxman - very probably suspects...

by aiyoyo 04.08.14 14:31

kimHager wrote:If she is defending the mccanns is she not worried they would can her for talking about the case with friends.. Attorney client privilege and all that. She said that friends won't talk about the case.... Honestly I'd be rather angry to find my attorney was talking about a case in any situation with friends... But even her friends think her clients are guilty! That should tell her something about that

In other words, her "everyone" refers to her friends or fellow colleagues in the field, not exactly joe public is it?

That begs the question did all her friends believe the father and mother killed Madeleine?

Is it a translation bug as one poster posited?
For one thing ID speaks English (I think), for another thing if she was misquoted she would have taken up the issue with the newspapers concerned.

This is was said when she was featured in a TV programme (I stand corrected if wrong) on a documentary that included interview with Amaral.

by aiyoyo 04.08.14 14:36

tasprin wrote:Definitely a contrived pity-party statement (probably with the McCanns knowledge and consent):

It was a contrived self-pity statement alright, but not with Mcs consent I should think.
I can't imagine her having to seek Mcs approval to make such a statement.

by tasprin 04.08.14 15:13

aiyoyo wrote:
tasprin wrote:Definitely a contrived pity-party statement (probably with the McCanns knowledge and consent):

It was a contrived self-pity statement alright, but not with Mcs consent I should think.
I can't imagine her having to seek Mcs approval to make such a statement.

What I meant to say was; I think it was agreed with the McCanns that Duarte would make a statement outside court - with the aim of discrediting Amaral and gaining sympathy - the gist being; his book of lies has "destroyed" my clients to such an extent that even my friends isolated me because I am defending them, but it all went horribly wrong.

"Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

"Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Re: "Everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse.”

Latest topics