Sunglasses - Bizarre

snap - crossed in post :-)

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Just like the coloboma?

You posted before I edited to add.

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Of course Aquila. Quite right.
I can't remember seeing cuddle cat making a debut in any of the home videos or on the video of the T9 on the shuttle bus. Nor have I seen its appearance in ANY of the photos that the McC's have invited the world and its wife to see.

Imo - Cuddle cat was NOT her fav toy, but probably one she was fond of.
Imo - the FAV toy went where ever MBM went.

Cuddle Cat was just a prop at that time. To bat away any suggestions M just wandered off. Because if she did wander off she would've took the cat with her. IMO

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:snap - crossed in post :-)

The coloboma promotion died a death, Madeleine's parents don't promote it any longer - just as Madeleine's parents don't promote age progression photographs in the hope someone recognises Madeleine in the here and now.

Madeleine's parents agree to sit on telly sofas without speaking of her eye defect or her age progression photographs. These were and still are huge things aren't they?

All I know is that I wouldn't agree to any form of media interview without sticking up a bloody great age progression photo of my child in the hope she is alive and findable...yet the McCanns don't do that. I find that incredible. You wouldn't get me to park my bum on any sofa or do any media interview without holding up these images.

Awareness! there's a little girl with an eye defect!

Awareness! Kate and Gerry went to USA and had age progression images (remember the video of that!). There have been more since (if I'm right SY have done one) and yet every interview I see of Kate and Gerry McCann (even at the Lisbon trial for goodness' sake) they don't take the opportunity to promote Madeleine's image - done by experts.

If there's no hope of a child being alive and findable why not change the website dedicated to that and close down a fund that's appealing for money to find your child alive?

PeterMac wrote:

aquila wrote:
If there's no hope of a child being alive and findable why not change the website dedicated to that and close down a fund that's appealing for money to find your child alive?

Because the Fund is also allowed to support the family ?

Jeez, if Madeleine's own parents can't bang a drum, speak constantly about age-progression images and an eye defect in the hope someone recognises her then it's a really poor show. I don't see any of the wider family doing it either.

Sorry, had to go off line, wan't being rude by not answering Aquila - Agree with your points

@ Petermac - their faith doesn't allow them to lie

All of this detail makes me more and more inclined to think that, by Tuesday, a 'disaster' had already happened. 

On Tuesday morning, there is the very peculiar 'tennis ball' photo of Madeleine, allegedly taken when Madeleine was with her Mini Club group for the mini-tennis session. Kate writes in her book how she ran back to the apartment to get her camera as Madeleine 'looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals.'

"It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning," writes Kate. "She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions......"

Hmmmm - over-egging again, methinks. Astonishingly audacious, imo. But that would be true to form.

And Kate's description of the afternoon trip to the beach also appears to be a desperate attempt to demonstrate that on Tuesday they were still very much a family of five. With three happy, active children. 

"We wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us."

".....the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. "

"The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for..."

"....the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else......." (A somewhat revealing statement perhaps, using the phrase 'hurting' and 'being hurt' = brain leak?)

"Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please."

This last sentence strikes me as implausible. I think it is yet another attempt to 'prove' that Madeleine was up and about and having fun on Tuesday.

So if something had already happened to Madeleine by Tuesday morning, how does that square up with the crying incident as heard by neighbour Mrs Fenn on Tuesday evening? I had wondered whether Kate had flown into a jealous rage after Gerry invited the quiz mistress to join their table after dinner on Tuesday evening and maybe lashed out at Madeleine. But that scenario does not take into account that by Tuesday morning, Madeleine may already have come to some grief. (But may not necessarily have died by then of course.)

However there was also a quiz night at the Tapas restaurant on Sunday evening, I do believe. Also hosted by the same quiz mistress. So Gerry may have already noticed the quiz mistress on Sunday evening (and there could easily have been some banter over this among the Tapas crowd) and was looking forward to a re-run on Tuesday. So it is possible that gregarious Gerry on Sunday evening was already trying to catch this lady's eye. And Kate was not amused. 

I think tensions were running high in the Mc marriage from the start of the holiday, and probably before. 

And it is most definitely of interest that Kate does not mention there being a quiz night at the Tapas bar on either Sunday or Tuesday, despite the fact that they were eating there on those evenings. She has a very selective memory, imo. And perhaps some thing are better forgotten. 

I bet that is why she had a row with Gerry. She felt humiliated in front of her friends. 


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh but I forgot! As Kate told the Irish interviewer in that priceless TV interview when the interviewer rubbed his hands together with gleeful anticipation as he broached the subject of Kate having had 'some kind of row' with Gerry during the holiday.

Kate: "We don't row."

The interviewer's facial expressions and body language are a joy to behold, imo. I think he is probably pretty much 'in the know' and is double-bluffing the Mcs and enjoying every second of it! A taste of their own medicine for once.

IMO.

Kate: "We don't row."

? WFT? who is she trying to kid?

People who say "we never row" generally means one is dominant and oppressive and the other is agreeable and passive/scared (a nodding dog - oops sorry - Note to self DONT MENTION DOGS) But this couple?
Nahhhh, I think they are both strong willed people. All that hand holding is just as much a stage prop as th colomboma and cuddle cat.

Most dignified people do not argue in public.
Most dignified people do not go about attacking inanimate objects IN PUBLIC - and dignified people don't admit to it either

@ petermac - Nor have IVF !
Twice. (or even more times unsuccessfully)

I am sorrey mate I didn't see the connection until now

- You r right. that is AGAINST Catholicism

Kate: "We don't row."



Take note of the pronoun used.
It is present tense not past tense.

If the interviewer asked "did you row/have a fight?" and her reply is we don't row, it is an unreliable denial.

She should have replied "We didn't row/fight" it would be first person plural WE, past tense DIDN'T, event specific ROW/FIGHT

Lying is stressful and the brain seeks to relieve that stress which is why we have lying by ommission, minimising, leakage of marbles and  even to creating a whole new reality (rare - think casey anthony)

We know that she and gerry had a fight as she told us she slept in the childrens room as she was upset, it is in her book,

What she is actually saying is at that moment in time, the present when she is asked the question, they do not row and thus she speaks the truth, they do not row.

What she isn't doing is answering the question asked which makes it sensitive.

Why does she need to be deceptive about the row?

Every couple rows, it is all part and parcel of the relationship.
There is give and take in every relationship, one partner perhaps being more dominant than the other.

I would ask what is your definition of a row?

If you didn't row, why did you sleep in the childrens bedroom?

Tell me what happened the night you and gerry slept in separate beds.

In families where a child goes missing, it is unusual to say the least for the innocent parents to not argue, to not fight.
Both parents will feel guilt at what they did or didn't do and could have done to change things and will also blame the other parent for perhaps not doing enough.
In many cases where a child goes missing, the stresses and strains cause the parents to separate and divorce.
The guilt abd blame is just too much for the relationship to bear.

With the mccanns we see the opposite, we see them draw closer togeather, to show a united front in public, though it may be different out of the public eye.

This is unexpected.

Is what keeps them togeather no shared innocence but shared guilt?

it would make sense.

The guilty secret is that they are forced to stay togeather, should they decide to part we then have custody issues, and, as we have seen all too often in warring couples, anything goes.

What is stop one parent saying the other parent killed Maddie and disposed of her body, i don't know where, and if they got custody of the children  the twins would be at risk.
They would be bringing up every dirty little secret to get the twins, mental health issues, domestic abuse (CATS 13909) substance abuse, depression, sex life etc.
Even if it meant admitting to some involvement in the death, disposal and subsequent civer up, they would minimise their own roll and push the other under the bus, even to if i can't have them, they can't either.
We also have kate's declared intent that she wished she could press a button and they would all be togeather.

I would love for Avinoam Sapir, Peter Hyatt or Kaaryn Gough to interview not only the mccanns, but the tapas 7 as well and clarentce mitchell ( i would love for him to be charged with obstuction and peverting the course of justice)

And they didn't even 'row' over whose fault it was, to leave the patio door to 5A 'unlocked' with their THREE kids ALONE inside the apartment thus enabling the 'burglator' free rein to enter and leave their apartment, AT WILL!

And NOT a 'cross' word between them!

OUCH! :wtf2: was that?

It's ok, it was just a 'flying' pig hitting me upsides my head!

I remember this, the women at the stall were making a fuss of the kids.  They were taken back to the crèche for the last hour of the session



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PeterMac wrote:

sharonl wrote:I remember this, the women at the stall were making a fuss of the kids.  They were taken back to the crèche for the last hour of the session

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nicely remembered !
From the book
"A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.
You may be wondering not only what relevance all these minute details might have to anything, but also how I can recall them so distinctly and how accurate my recollections can possibly be. The answer is that, within a couple of days, every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important, and Gerry and I would soon be painstakingly trying to extract from our brains every tiny incident, no matter how small, that might have been significant. Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could. The regular routines of the week helped to make any deviations from them stand out and undoubtedly made this easier.
We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea. "
So not until 4pm.  NOT 2.30pm

So yet another mistake or a downright LIE ?

And when you then consider the bit in the middle of that paragraph
"You may be wondering not only what relevance all these minute details might have to anything, but also how I can recall them so distinctly and how accurate my recollections can possibly be. The answer is that, within a couple of days, every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important, and Gerry and I would soon be painstakingly trying to extract from our brains every tiny incident, no matter how small, that might have been significant. Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could. The regular routines of the week helped to make any deviations from them stand out and undoubtedly made this easier."

we can safely assume that the whole thing is a Lie.  A fabrication, but not done well enough.
Sunglasses - NO
Dropped off for the last hour and a half - NO
LIE
LIE

But WHY ?    I think we know the answer to that one.
YET again we see Kate trying too hard, giving too much information, too much detail, the sure signs of a liar.
And yet again Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 has proved itself invaluable.

So the kids were collected at 12.30 and returned to the crèche at 2.30, having been picked up for lunch as usual.

During these two hours, Madeleine would have also been collected, they would have ate lunch and presumably hired a buggy, in addition to the trip to the beach and the walk back to the crèches.



A few questions arise.


1.Was there time for all of this activity in two hours?
2.Did the trip to the beach really take place?
3.What time did they head for the beach?
4.Did they really hire a buggy for the stated purpose?
5.Who went to the beach?
6.If Kate and Gerry went to the beach without the children (who may have been in the crèche), what was the purpose of the trip, and what was the purpose of the buggy?

7. Did they take the children's bucket and shovel with them?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PeterMac wrote:

sharonl wrote:
So the kids were collected at 12.30 and returned to the crèche at 2.30, having been picked up for lunch as usual.
A few questions arise.

1.Was there time for all of this activity in two hours?   NO
2.Did the trip to the beach really take place?   NO
3.What time did they head for the beach?   THEY DIDN"T
4.Did they really hire a buggy for the stated purpose?   NO
5.Who went to the beach?   NO ONE
6.If Kate and Gerry went to the beach without the children. . ., what was the purpose of the trip, and what was the purpose of the buggy? NOT TELLING !

They claimed that it started to rain later that afternoon.  What were the weather conditions in the morning?

PeterMac wrote:
YET again we see Kate trying too hard, giving too much information, too much detail, the sure signs of a liar.
And yet again Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 has proved itself invaluable.

People who tell the truth only have to say what they remember.

People who lie have to remember what they said.

DRAUGHTS - AND APARTMENT G5A

As a contribution to this thread, here is a communication I had recently from someone I will refer to just as 'DH':

QUOTE

I attach a paper which I hope you find helpful, or at least interesting.

It does contain a Critical Path Analysis of the crucial hour, which attempts to show the absurdity of the Tapas 9's accounts of the evening.

One point that you might like to note re Kate McCann's late embellishment relating to the "whoosh" of the curtains and slamming of the door.

In her book (I am afraid I don't have the precise reference to hand), Kate says that when the door slammed she checked to see that she had shut the patio doors behind her so that the wind couldn't have come from there.

This is a clear sign that she is lying, because doors slam when there is a flow of air through a property. In other words, her story would have been hugely more credible if the door had slammed "having left the patio door open". It is the flow of air from the window to the patio that would CAUSE it to slam.

By making the point that she shut the patio door, making it very unlikely the door would slam, it is obvious she is concocting an untruth. It is easy to construct an experiment to show doors slamming repeatedly with two apertures open, and which immediately stops once one of the apertures is closed.

UNQUOTE

That is absolutely correct Tony, there needs to be a through-draught.

Common problem in my house where it happens often, easily resolved by closing a window.

" On Tuesday 1 May, . . . In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
. . . Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. . . .
You may be wondering not only what relevance all these minute details might have to anything, but also how I can recall them so distinctly and how accurate my recollections can possibly be. The answer is that, within a couple of days, every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important, and Gerry and I would soon be painstakingly trying to extract from our brains every tiny incident, no matter how small, that might have been significant.

Creche record shows the children were in the Creche on the afternoon of May 1.
But Kate says in her bewk the children were taken to the beach despite "they'd have been just as happy to go back to their clubs"?

That brings creche records as piece of reliable document into question or Kate was lying.
IMO the trip to the beach did not happen. Kate was lying.

She tried to give a false impression their children did get a break from Creche. That they did spend time with their children at the beach at least once during the holiday. And sunglasses purchase was cited as reason how they were able to recall the outing. Sunglasses purchase was the highlight of that trip that causes her to remember what they did on which day/date.

How pathetic is that? Is it credible that the one and only time she took the children to the beach stopping by the open air market stalls enroute to the beach and all she could remember about that special outing is sunglasses purchase and the bad weather.
No children I know go past stalls without asking to buy something to eat, if it is only lollies. Even had the children not asked, did Kate not think of buying drinks or snacks for the children to take to the beach?
Not one activity the children did at the market stalls or at the beach was mentioned. How strange is that?

All the things she remembered were things adults did - borrowing the buggy, having to carry one grumpy child, bad weather, stopping at the market stalls for Gerry purpose. No photograph to show for that outing and not one thing the children did that stood out for her, how peculiar is that?

As parents they are clueless, with the result that their eldest child has dramatically and tragically disappeared.  I feel sorry for the twins and wonder how they will cope in the future.  All IMO.

On that point, I think KM is trying to let the reader know that.... see, i am a protective parent.... 
Imo