Re: McCann - is now a substitute for the Bogeyman in Portugal

by Brian Griffin 27.08.14 8:55

palm tree wrote:
Brian Griffin wrote:
palm tree wrote:Check out the smirk when he's asked if someone says to him I'm sure I seen Madeleine, I know it was her, to me, that duping delight smirk tells me he knows exactly what happened, exactly where she is and that no one will find her. Sick. Can't post the link but I'm sure you know what one I'm talking about.
IMO
I have a theory that the programme that I am imagining you learned about 'duping delight' from, was the same one I did, although I can't remember the name of it - I have a theory that that programme was actually hinting they were saying teh opposite about Mr and Mrs to what they were actually saying, for the same reason the papers here never print anything negative and - dare I say - sue-able, if there is s such a word. It was a programme about analysing killers, was it not? So why did the McCanns feature in it at all? If memory serves me, their inclusion was to show an honest couple, who weren't lying, when Gerry was reading the initial plea for help. But what about the many appearances after that, where the couple demonstrate the very same gestures, traits and awkwardness as the examples of people who did commit crimes? Why were all those ignored? People on Youtube, such as Hi De Ho have made videos analysing the traits and tell-tale signs. Why were all those ignored. To me it feels like the programme is saying 'We've mentioned the McCanns in a documentary where they have no place...we've shown you the signs to look out for in others...we can't point the finger at them and noone knows why...but you can take what we've said and apply it to their many other interviews. That's just my theory, and my opinion. But that's what I'm led to suspect. It's like reading the subtext.
Can't remember the name either but it was a girl, wasn't it? I watched one where she used Clinton? As an example? But, then the clip was made by someone, (hi de oh not sure though) where the mcs had been added in, well, brilliant, it was on you tube too! Seriously, from the get go, these two know exactly what happened and where she is, and no policeman with a brain cell can believe them. It's impossible. It's like theyre rubbing everyone's noses in it, the untouchables!
IMO

Here you go: http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2014/01/ian-huntley-stuart-hazell-and-the-mccanns-experts-reveal-how-to-spot-the-liars-from-the-innocent-in-famous-missing-child-cases

Yes, I believe it was Hi De Ho who added the Mcs in.

One thing that struck a chord with me was the bit about Hazell, and how his face was used as an example of feigned concern, and it was likened to something children do - something to do with a certain forced kind of frown - betraying insincerity.

McCann - is now a substitute for the Bogeyman in Portugal - Page 2 0

To my eyes, Kate pulls this face most of the time in front of the camera (although she can be seen laughing when she thinks she is off camera like in that Crimewatch bollox), especially when hubby is doing the talking, but not exclusively. Take a look at any of their interviews and see what you think.

McCann - is now a substitute for the Bogeyman in Portugal - Page 2 Spanishint3

I think what fuels this case is the Mcs seeming lack of sincerity and the bizarre way the UK authorities just seem to accept everything they do and say as fact, no matter how many alterations are made. Seven years on they could say that they now remember Madeleine was abducted by little blue aliens in a flying burger van, and it would be taken as the truth. Who gets such unprecedented protection, and perhaps more to the point, why?

All in my opinion.

by palm tree 27.08.14 11:21

worriedmum wrote:
palm tree wrote:Check out the smirk when he's asked if someone says to him I'm sure I seen Madeleine, I know it was her, to me, that duping delight smirk tells me he knows exactly what happened, exactly where she is and that no one will find her. Sick. Can't post the link but I'm sure you know what one I'm talking about.
IMO
Is it this clip with Amanda Walker? From 0 to about 25 seconds.

''...take us through the emotional experience you go through from the moment that someone says 'I've definitely seen Madeleine, to when it's discounted,''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZcfFTOti-s

Also later in the same video Amanda asks them if the widening of the campaign is a sign that their hopes for finding Madeleine are fading... 8.38 onwards

Yep, that's it worriedmum, just wondering, because gm looks so confident there where had they been with the car at that time? Gonna check, I think that interview was the tenth of August, so...

by palm tree 27.08.14 12:00

@Brian. Liars are very concerned about their appearance and how they appeal to the media. That's the first line under the innocents paragraph!

SL guilty and innocent have been proven to be so, but I wonder why she believes the mcs? Even I can see and have heard their lies, yet, police and PIs can't, won't or maybe just not yet. I wonder did SL see Hi De Hos brilliant example? Better job than hers for sure IMO

by Brian Griffin 27.08.14 15:42

I have a theory, that I rather poorly stated above, that by including the Mcs, she was really urging us to look at the Mcs more closely, with regard to what she tells us about the others, without actually saying it directly, because she couldn't, just like no media here seems to be able to run a negative McCann story. Look at all Gerry's poker-tells - the fidgeting, the itchy ear, the smirk: all involuntary movements. They don't need to do a lie-detector because it's written all over them. Allegedly, and in my opinion.

by Brian Griffin 27.08.14 15:59

worriedmum wrote:
palm tree wrote:Check out the smirk when he's asked if someone says to him I'm sure I seen Madeleine, I know it was her, to me, that duping delight smirk tells me he knows exactly what happened, exactly where she is and that no one will find her. Sick. Can't post the link but I'm sure you know what one I'm talking about.
IMO
Is it this clip with Amanda Walker? From 0 to about 25 seconds.

''...take us through the emotional experience you go through from the moment that someone says 'I've definitely seen Madeleine, to when it's discounted,''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZcfFTOti-s

Also later in the same video Amanda asks them if the widening of the campaign is a sign that their hopes for finding Madeleine are fading... 8.38 onwards

Interesting video. Maybe these people who have told Kate that they have left their kids on their own/do leave them on their own should be added to a list of unfit parents.

Also, Gerry's comment that it felt like dining at the bottom of your garden. It might do, if you happen to live somewhere like Tatton Park!

In my opinion.

by jeanmonroe 27.08.14 16:13

Brian Griffin wrote:I have a theory, that I rather poorly stated above, that by including the Mcs, she was really urging us to look at the Mcs more closely, with regard to what she tells us about the others, without actually saying it directly, because she couldn't, just like no media here seems to be able to run a negative McCann story. Look at all Gerry's poker-tells - the fidgeting, the itchy ear, the smirk: all involuntary movements. They don't need to do a lie-detector because it's written all over them. Allegedly, and in my opinion.

I'm sorry?

WHY should WE 'look' when the 'missing' child's OWN parents DIDN'T/HAVEN'T and ARE not 'looking' for their 'missing' child THEMSELVES!

REmind me:

What did the entire McCann/Healy 'families' actually DO yesterday, last week, last YEAR, and WHAT will THEY, ALL be doing today/tomorrow to 'look for/find' their terribly missed family member, Madeleine?

Even their holidaying' FRIENDS' only 'looked' for, so they say, for a FEW MINUTES, on the night Madeleine 'disappeared' and even THEY haven't 'looked for' Madeleine for a SINGLE MINUTE, SINCE!

Hmmmm.

I'll start 'looking' when the entire McCann/Healy 'family members', and the rest of the Tapas 9, ALL of THEM, start 'looking'!

Seems the Mccanns CAN 'search/look for' money in Portugal, via their 'libel claim' but CANNOT 'search/look for' their own daughter!

On the day GA 'halted' the libel case, the McCanns had 'time' to go to PDL, only 183kms away, and 'look' for 'something', ANYTHING!

Did they do THAT?

HELL NO!

As i said, i'll start 'looking' WHEN Madeleine's OWN parents and families START 'looking'!

Unless, of course, the entire McCann/Healy families KNOW exactly where Madeleine IS ('hidden away' waiting to 'return' years later as the McCanns CONSTANTLY say in interviews, with bewks and Z list zlebrity 'status' to follow, or sadly demised) or who they THINK shes WITH!

As 'auntie' Philomena let 'slip'

"they haven't told them (the twins) WHERE she (madeleine) is"

"They (McCanns) think she's (madeleine) WITH"

THAT would certainly EXPLAIN both 'families' total LACK of enthusiasum for ANY 'search/searching' by THEM, for Madeleine, wouldn't it?

thinking

ON!
-----------------------------------------------------

Kate McCann: "we were GLAD the case was CLOSED"

Kate McCann: "whether the case is re-opened, or NOT, it dosen't MATTER"

(I'm GLAD she ain't my mum!)

Unless, of course, she and both entire families know, KNOW, that Madeleine WILL be er, 'found' er, UNHARMED, with all the resultant 'goodies/freebies' Zlebrity for BOTH families that will go with THAT........................

by palm tree 27.08.14 16:50

Brian Griffin wrote:I have a theory, that I rather poorly stated above, that by including the Mcs, she was really urging us to look at the Mcs more closely, with regard to what she tells us about the others, without actually saying it directly, because she couldn't, just like no media here seems to be able to run a negative McCann story. Look at all Gerry's poker-tells - the fidgeting, the itchy ear, the smirk: all involuntary movements. They don't need to do a lie-detector because it's written all over them. Allegedly, and in my opinion.

Ah Brian, I get you now! People watching that and thinking, hold on a minute, the mcs show all the signs of lying, then they go back and rewatch the mcs appeals and interviewing. It's like saying this is what liars look like, but of course, she can't say it herself?
IMO

by Brian Griffin 27.08.14 17:30

palm tree wrote:Ah Brian, I get you now! People watching that and thinking, hold on a minute, the mcs show all the signs of lying, then they go back and rewatch the mcs appeals and interviewing. It's like saying this is what liars look like, but of course, she can't say it herself?
IMO

Yes. That's exactly what I'm getting at. It's only a theory, but look at the way the newspapers try and report negative things about them by what they leave out, or what they state that others say. Their hands are tied, but it doesn't mean they can't wiggle the odd finger. In my opinion, of course.

by Brian Griffin 27.08.14 17:34

jeanmonroe wrote:
Brian Griffin wrote:I have a theory, that I rather poorly stated above, that by including the Mcs, she was really urging us to look at the Mcs more closely, with regard to what she tells us about the others, without actually saying it directly, because she couldn't, just like no media here seems to be able to run a negative McCann story. Look at all Gerry's poker-tells - the fidgeting, the itchy ear, the smirk: all involuntary movements. They don't need to do a lie-detector because it's written all over them. Allegedly, and in my opinion.

I'm sorry?

WHY should WE 'look' when the 'missing' child's OWN parents DIDN'T/HAVEN'T and ARE not 'looking' for their 'missing' child THEMSELVES!

REmind me:

What did the entire McCann/Healy 'families' actually DO yesterday, last week, last YEAR, and WHAT will THEY, ALL be doing today/tomorrow to 'look for/find' their terribly missed family member, Madeleine?

Even their holidaying' FRIENDS' only 'looked' for, so they say, for a FEW MINUTES, on the night Madeleine 'disappeared' and even THEY haven't 'looked for' Madeleine for a SINGLE MINUTE, SINCE!

Hmmmm.

I'll start 'looking' when the entire McCann/Healy 'family members', and the rest of the Tapas 9, ALL of THEM, start 'looking'!

Seems the Mccanns CAN 'search/look for' money in Portugal, via their 'libel claim' but CANNOT 'search/look for' their own daughter!

On the day GA 'halted' the libel case, the McCanns had 'time' to go to PDL, only 183kms away, and 'look' for 'something', ANYTHING!

Did they do THAT?

HELL NO!

As i said, i'll start 'looking' WHEN Madeleine's OWN parents and families START 'looking'!

Unless, of course, the entire McCann/Healy families KNOW exactly where Madeleine IS ('hidden away' waiting to 'return' years later as the McCanns CONSTANTLY say in interviews, with bewks and Z list zlebrity 'status' to follow, or sadly demised) or who they THINK shes WITH!

As 'auntie' Philomena let 'slip'

"they haven't told them (the twins) WHERE she (madeleine) is"

"They (McCanns) think she's (madeleine) WITH"

THAT would certainly EXPLAIN both 'families' total LACK of enthusiasum for ANY 'search/searching' by THEM, for Madeleine, wouldn't it?

ON!
-----------------------------------------------------

Kate McCann: "we were GLAD the case was CLOSED"

Kate McCann: "whether the case is re-opened, or NOT, it dosen't MATTER"

(I'm GLAD she ain't my mum!)

Unless, of course, she and both entire families know, KNOW, that Madeleine WILL be er, 'found' er, UNHARMED, with all the resultant 'goodies/freebies' Zlebrity for BOTH families that will go with THAT........................

Erm...you're going to feel a bit silly when you reread the post you are replying to.

by palm tree 27.08.14 19:11

Brian Griffin wrote:
palm tree wrote:Ah Brian, I get you now! People watching that and thinking, hold on a minute, the mcs show all the signs of lying, then they go back and rewatch the mcs appeals and interviewing. It's like saying this is what liars look like, but of course, she can't say it herself?
IMO
Yes. That's exactly what I'm getting at. It's only a theory, but look at the way the newspapers try and report negative things about them by what they leave out, or what they state that others say. Their hands are tied, but it doesn't mean they can't wiggle the odd finger. In my opinion, of course.

And thinking more about, she didn't even need to mention them at all! But as you say, wiggling the odd finger, makes sense.
IMO

by Brian Griffin 27.08.14 21:28

That's what I mean! No need to mention them because the programme focussed on killers. It could, of course, be that yet another programme was just trying to suck up the McCanns, or had been told to include them by some third party to showcase, yet again, the innocence of the poor, misunderstood couple. Then again, it could be a kind of 'subtext' as my theory suggests. Again, just a theory and just in my opinion.

Still no word from jeanmonroe on that rant. Now there is a case of misunderstanding for you!

by XTC 27.08.14 22:22

jeanmonroe

So it's not just me that sometimes gets the unnerving feeling that we may all be being played like violins?

It's such a strange tale of luck and coincidence ( 27000/1 - Ruth McCann and a cleaner called McCann ) that
its solvability remains a distant hope.

SY have ample evidence staring them in the face which requires a search for more credible evidence to wrap it up.

Instead it appears that they are searching for suspects rather than more evidence. Find the suspect(s) find the evidence.

It doesn't work like that. That approach is what you would do to fit suspects up.

It's pre-concieved and the Met in general has done an awful lot of pre-conceiving in its time. Hence all the recent public Inquiries are leading
to their doors.

Best if they drop this approach and focus on the evidence before their own eyes. Test that first and build on it. If it leads
now where then so be it. Then you can look for alternatives. ou look only when original fresh evidence is exhausted.

My lack of faith in SY derives purely and simply from one thing they could have done and haven't done. The fact that they have never mentioned it is all I need to know as to where this is heading.

Long grass here we come. The timing of this will no doubt be related to Mr Amaral's damages trial.

He'll win but it will be a score draw becase they will make him sweat for his money via appeals.

In the Court of Public opinion is where it's at for TM. Simple as that for me. SY are seemingly assistants in that process.

Why? I don't know. But lack of actions speak louder than words I reckon.

Opinion only though.

by palm tree 27.08.14 22:36

Brian Griffin wrote:That's what I mean! No need to mention them because the programme focussed on killers. It could, of course, be that yet another programme was just trying to suck up the McCanns, or had been told to include them by some third party to showcase, yet again, the innocence of the poor, misunderstood couple. Then again, it could be a kind of 'subtext' as my theory suggests. Again, just a theory and just in my opinion.

Still no word from jeanmonroe on that rant. Now there is a case of misunderstanding for you!

Trying all day not to but big grin

Misunderstanding I'm sure!

by palm tree 27.08.14 22:46

@XTC, wouldn't it be horrible if they'd found some evidence and are just waiting on a suitable patsy to hand it to? I'm just hoping and praying that because this case is so damning and followed by people (like us and others) that in the end justice will prevail, and RH has hopefully helped Madeleine too.
IMO

by waiting for justice 27.08.14 22:53

This may be the wrong place but I'm trying to understand where the MC's had breakfast on the first full day.

Still trawling through the files and they said they had breakfast in the bar the first day but as it was a bit too far they then bought stuff from the local supermarket to eat in the apartment.

How far exactly I'm wondering is the Tapas to the 'bar'?
Surely is can't have been that far or was it one of the same?

Confused

by palm tree 27.08.14 23:09

waiting for justice wrote:This may be the wrong place but I'm trying to understand where the MC's had breakfast on the first full day.

Still trawling through the files and they said they had breakfast in the bar the first day but as it was a bit too far they then bought stuff from the local supermarket to eat in the apartment.

How far exactly I'm wondering is the Tapas to the 'bar'?
Surely is can't have been that far or was it one of the same?

Confused

Not sure, but I always thought they meant the millennium?

by waiting for justice 27.08.14 23:25

I missed a lot of it the first time round but re reading it there are so many holes in those statements.
Even within the same paragraph in some cases.

Personally, I think a lot of it transpires from them trying to look like good parents when in fact they're sh#t!
See it on days out all the time, all the yummy mummies in a huddle yabbering, oblivious and hubbies the same, whilst the kids are running wild and not taking turns whilst yours stand and wait patiently. Infuriating.

by palm tree 27.08.14 23:38

palm tree wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
palm tree wrote:Check out the smirk when he's asked if someone says to him I'm sure I seen Madeleine, I know it was her, to me, that duping delight smirk tells me he knows exactly what happened, exactly where she is and that no one will find her. Sick. Can't post the link but I'm sure you know what one I'm talking about.
IMO
Is it this clip with Amanda Walker? From 0 to about 25 seconds.

''...take us through the emotional experience you go through from the moment that someone says 'I've definitely seen Madeleine, to when it's discounted,''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZcfFTOti-s

Also later in the same video Amanda asks them if the widening of the campaign is a sign that their hopes for finding Madeleine are fading... 8.38 onwards
Yep, that's it worriedmum, just wondering, because gm looks so confident there where had they been with the car at that time? Gonna check, I think that interview was the tenth of August, so...

Well, the Huelva trip was the 3rd of August then...

by jeanmonroe 28.08.14 11:44

If 'feeling a bit silly' for mis-posting is the absolute pinnacle of the worst things i have to worry about, i will be absolutely DELIGHTED!

Thankfully, nobody died, from my 'silly' mis-placed 'post'.

PHEW!

A child 'might' of died, on 3rd May 2007, in PDL, due to 'silly mistakes' by her parents!

So, my 'feeling silly' for mis-posting, pales into insignificance when put in that 'context' dosen't it?

by Brian Griffin 28.08.14 14:41

jeanmonroe wrote:If 'feeling a bit silly' for mis-posting is the absolute pinnacle of the worst things i have to worry about, i will be absolutely DELIGHTED!

Thankfully, nobody died, from my 'silly' mis-placed 'post'.

PHEW!

A child 'might' of died, on 3rd May 2007, in PDL, due to 'silly mistakes' by her parents!

So, my 'feeling silly' for mis-posting, pales into insignificance when put in that 'context' dosen't it?

Yep. You're definitely feeling silly, which is why you're coming across all aggressive.

You could have just written 'Oops. My mistake' but your silly pride made you post in a manner that makes you look even more silly.

But don't worry. I won't tell anyone.

Silly, silly Jeanie! big grin

by Evening_All 01.09.14 22:15

Just curious about this, with all the bad press about the Algarve being crawling with paedofiles, child lechers, bent idiotic police officers, dungeon lairs etc, what are the tourist figures like compared with say 10 years ago? new

by XTC 01.09.14 23:02

palm tree wrote:@XTC, wouldn't it be horrible if they'd found some evidence and are just waiting on a suitable patsy to hand it to? I'm just hoping and praying that because this case is so damning and followed by people (like us and others) that in the end justice will prevail, and RH has hopefully helped Madeleine too.
IMO

palm tree

Even a patsy with a half baked lawyer would demand evidence I'm sure and the Sun's " It was 'im who dunnit "
wouldn't do in front of a Portuguese Judge.

There is the Court of Public opinion and there is a real Court.

Not even a dead patsy is on the radar now in my humble opinion.

This appears to be a case of winding the British Public down very gently.

I could possibly infer from this episode that the current PJ have decided not to co-operate with the British Police.

Too late to half apologise now I reckon.
SY have not been exactly adhering to the Portuguese policy of Judicial Secrecy have they?

I for one can't blame them.

Unofficially the PJ think that this crime was a one off by a foreigner. Not Portuguese.

Opinion though.

by Evening_All 01.09.14 23:09

XTC wrote:
palm tree wrote:@XTC, wouldn't it be horrible if they'd found some evidence and are just waiting on a suitable patsy to hand it to? I'm just hoping and praying that because this case is so damning and followed by people (like us and others) that in the end justice will prevail, and RH has hopefully helped Madeleine too.
IMO
officially the PJ think that this crime was a one off by a foreigner. Not Portuguese.

Opinion though.

Which one?