Re: Sunglasses - Bizarre

by plebgate 28.09.14 12:56

Snipped from PeterM's post:

"
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." "

The police would, I am sure, been very happy to receive all of these recollections at the time, but she did not answer questions put to her by the Police - all except one that is.

If every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important, and if she could recall them so distinctly, why the heck not put a stamp on a letter to the Pt. police giving all these recollections (later published in the Bewk) and ask them to IMMEDIATELY re-open the case?

Those 48 unanswered questions are not going to go away, no matter what is said and done by any of their Team.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS - Simple as that IMO.

by **PeterMac** 28.09.14 15:21

On Tuesday 1st it was totally overcast and windy and cold - So we went to the beach
The children did not want to go - so we hired a buggy and gave them no choice
We got to the beach and the children did not like the wet sand - so we sat on a bench
The children wanted ice-creams - so I went to buy them 25 yards away and didn't let them choose their own
It was still totally overcast and windy and cold - so we bought Gerry some sunglasses.
Gerry is a Consultant on 120k and is used to good quality things and I am on 80k as a GP - so we got cheap ones from a market stall
We took the children back to the creches at 4pm - So I forged the booking sheets and put 2:30
The whole trip, all 350 metres of it, (= 700m. there and back), in the freezing cold and the rain, and including the ice cream - took 3 and a half hours.

Kate, Gerry, Carter-Ruck, OG, shills, Kevin, and anyone else listening
Who do you think you are trying to kid ?

by HelenMeg 28.09.14 15:57

I dont know what your problem is, it all makes perfect sense big grin

by aiyoyo 28.09.14 15:59

PeterMac wrote:And do not parents take children TO the ice cream vendor to chat about what they want and to receive their ice creams once they are prepared,?
But Kate seem to have left hers 25 yards away in the pouring rain whilst she went herself and brought back all five.
Credible ?

Hmmmm.

Again, that is recount of what the adult did on the day,and not what the children did.
Not one thing the children did was mentioned at all. It's all about what K & G did. Not only not normal it is simply not credible at all.
What kind of mother writes a book for a missing daughter conveniently omitting to talk about the child and everything the missing child did on a once in her life time outing to the beach in PDL with the family? Maddie was not mentioned by name as having gone on this outing,only a number was given, she was one of out of the 5. Very bizarre.

Normal parents take their children to the ice cream vendor,let them decide what they like and let them receive their ice-cream on their own in great excitement. Children do not have to be urged to go to the ice cream vendor. The moment they spot an ice cream vendor their automatic reaction would be to run towards it while asking if they can have an ice cream. Even if they had not run ahead of the parents it's unheard of for children to wait patiently for adults to come back with their ice cream, they would be following you there even if you told them to stay put.

What kind of mum leave her young children unattended in the rain while she went to buy ice cream? It's just not normal.

It didn't happen. Kate invented that story to make them look like responsible parents who did things with their children during the holiday. She was back fitting to deflect from criticism their children were left in the creche every day while the adults did their own things. Apart from night time they were left in their beds home alone while the adults dined out.

by HelenMeg 28.09.14 16:05

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:And do not parents take children TO the ice cream vendor to chat about what they want and to receive their ice creams once they are prepared,?
But Kate seem to have left hers 25 yards away in the pouring rain whilst she went herself and brought back all five.
Credible ?

Hmmmm.

Again, that is recount of what the adult did on the day,and not what the children did.
Not one thing the children did was mentioned at all. It's all about what K & G did. Not only not normal it is simply not credible at all.
What kind of mother writes a book for a missing daughter conveniently omitting to talk about the child and everything the missing child did on a once in her life time outing to the beach in PDL with the family? Maddie was not mentioned by name as having gone on this outing,only a number was given, she was one of out of the 5. Very bizarre.

Normal parents take their children to the ice cream vendor,let them decide what they like and let them receive their ice-cream on their own in great excitement. Children do not have to be urged to go to the ice cream vendor. The moment they spot an ice cream vendor their automatic reaction would be to run towards it while asking if they can have an ice cream. Even if they had not run ahead of the parents it's unheard of for children to wait patiently for adults to come back with their ice cream, they would be following you there even if you told them to stay put.

I dont think it is at all bizarre given that the book was not written as a memoir but for the sole purpose of providing Mc Canns with a 'defence / alibi / justification'...
It is exactly what one would expect from someone who is covering her / their tracks and creating a fairy tale.

We should stop thinking Mc Cann actions and behaviour are bizarre. They are, in fact, acting entirely normally for a couple who are ducking and diving.

by **PeterMac** 28.09.14 16:19

HelenMeg wrote:
I dont think it is at all bizarre given that the book was not written as a memoir but for the sole purpose of providing Mc Canns with a 'defence / alibi / justification'...
It is exactly what one would expect from someone who is covering her / their tracks and creating a fairy tale.
We should stop thinking Mc Cann actions and behaviour are bizarre. They are, in fact, acting entirely normally for a couple who are ducking and diving.

I think you are right,though what worries me is that their Version is so incoherent and incomplete, and so easily capable of being proved to be false.
Surely with the resources at their disposal, months on their own in Portugal, then Kate with years on her own, with all their legal people, including a Senior and respected solicitor prepared to swear in an affidavit on oath in the High Court of Justice in England, something which she could not then prove, based purely on what she had been told . . .
Surely, given all that -
they could have come up with something a bit better.
They must now that "ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse", or "wer sich entschildigt, sich beschuldigt"
They have surely heard the maxim 'better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool then to speak and remove all doubt"

By gibbering on in so much invented detail it invites people with the determination to examine that detail, to pick holes in it, and to find conclusive evidence that it is not correct.

If Santa Katerina of the Multiple Immaculate Conceptions had never referred to what they did that day, none of this would be being discussed.
We might reasonably have assumed that Gerry had actually packed a pair of sunglasses, and worn them on the first two days of the holiday.
We might reasonably have assumed that they and the children went to the beach at some time, but might, again I think reasonably, have assumed it was not on a day when it was cold and raining.
But we are told that our reasonable assumptions are in direct contradiction to their reality.

by aiyoyo 28.09.14 16:26

Well we know they are ducking and diving but this book is supposed to be about Madeleine as the title suggests and not about Kate.

by **sharonl** 28.09.14 16:46

I find the whole thing very worrying for other reasons. What was it that Goncalo Amaral said about the beach?

A few more questions that may need answering here.

1. Did Kate and Gerry go to the beach? If so,
2. Did they take a buggy?
3. Who was in the buggy?
4. Given the weather conditions, was there anyone else on the beach?.
5. When was the buggy returned?
6. Was the buggy ever examined by the PJ?

by Guest 28.09.14 17:39

Right.. this is a FACT.

Kate's book and the Creche records can't both be right.

Feel free to discuss that with Summers and Swann.

Good luck.

by **PeterMac** 28.09.14 18:11

BlueBag wrote:Right.. this is a FACT.
Kate's book and the Creche records can't both be right.
Feel free to discuss that with Summers and Swann.
Good luck.

DISCUSS - verb [ trans. ]
talk about (something) with another person or group of people
talk or write about (a topic) in detail, taking into account different ideas and opinions

It tends to imply that the other person will respond !

by aiyoyo 29.09.14 6:24

PeterMac wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
I dont think it is at all bizarre given that the book was not written as a memoir but for the sole purpose of providing Mc Canns with a 'defence / alibi / justification'...
It is exactly what one would expect from someone who is covering her / their tracks and creating a fairy tale.
We should stop thinking Mc Cann actions and behaviour are bizarre. They are, in fact, acting entirely normally for a couple who are ducking and diving.

I think you are right,though what worries me is that their Version is so incoherent and incomplete, and so easily capable of being proved to be false.
Surely with the resources at their disposal, months on their own in Portugal, then Kate with years on her own, with all their legal people, including a Senior and respected solicitor prepared to swear in an affidavit on oath in the High Court of Justice in England, something which she could not then prove, based purely on what she had been told . . .
Surely, given all that -
they could have come up with something a bit better.
They must now that "ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse", or "wer sich entschildigt, sich beschuldigt"
They have surely heard the maxim 'better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool then to speak and remove all doubt"

By gibbering on in so much invented detail it invites people with the determination to examine that detail, to pick holes in it, and to find conclusive evidence that it is not correct.

If Santa Katerina of the Multiple Immaculate Conceptions had never referred to what they did that day, none of this would be being discussed.
We might reasonably have assumed that Gerry had actually packed a pair of sunglasses, and worn them on the first two days of the holiday.
We might reasonably have assumed that they and the children went to the beach at some time, but might, again I think reasonably, have assumed it was not on a day when it was cold and raining.
But we are told that our reasonable assumptions are in direct contradiction to their reality.

The point of the book was to fool the public and to make money.
Even if the book had been given the all clear by lawyers, it would just be libel clear.
Lawyers do not concern themselves over if the book is non-fiction or pulp fiction. So long as they met their brief to ensure contents are libel-proof from anyone, they couldn't care less about authenticity of the book contents.
Those nitty gritty details of truth or lies as they may be are beyond lawyers anyway. Those are in the hands of the writer.
Lawyers do what they do best - cover their own back while happy to let Kate hang herself by the rope if it comes to that.
Client's truth is never lawyers' concern. They are only concerned with getting 30 pieces of silver off their client.

Even with all the resources at her disposal and surrounding herself with legal people that money can buy, only Kate alone can tell her story.
It's her story to tell in her way.
No resources or any one from legal field can hope to help or interfere in her story telling. Hers alone to tell, to live by, or to die by.
Her head will be the chopping board if it comes that day; her lies hence hers to defend. Lawyers will help her argue the technical points of law, no more no less, and it's always done for money, never for client's interest nor sanity.

by Guest 29.09.14 7:49

aiyoyo wrote:It's her story to tell in her way.
No resources or any one from legal field can hope to help or interfere in her story telling.

I'm amazed that no one in the media monitoring unit had the gumption to map out the time-lines for everyone that week to "help" Kate.

Who was where and when... on a gantt chart.

The ridiculous sunglasses / creche contradiction would never have happened.

Maybe they thought no one would look so close?

by **PeterMac** 29.09.14 8:17

BlueBag wrote:
I'm amazed that no one in the media monitoring unit had the gumption to map out the time-lines for everyone that week to "help" Kate.
Who was where and when... on a gantt chart.
The ridiculous sunglasses / creche contradiction would never have happened.
Maybe they thought no one would look so close?

I suspect that this is like the "reconstruction"
Impossible to achieve without directly implicating one or more.

by Guest 29.09.14 8:22

PeterMac wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
I'm amazed that no one in the media monitoring unit had the gumption to map out the time-lines for everyone that week to "help" Kate.
Who was where and when... on a gantt chart.
The ridiculous sunglasses / creche contradiction would never have happened.
Maybe they thought no one would look so close?
I suspect that this is like the "reconstruction"
Impossible to achieve without directly implicating one or more.

But at least it would have stopped the introduction of new contradictions.

by joyce1938 29.09.14 9:20

The thing is that they had no idea really how many sites would take the PJ files upon them selves ,and pull everything apart of what the files say and did it fit with what theytried to get away with ,intheir own truth?. Its been a real journey for most of us here,we want it sorted to truth and cant seem to let it go ,so we plod on .Joyce1938

by HelenMeg 29.09.14 10:26

Agree with most comments here.. you would have thought that with all the advice available she would not have written the book such that it made them look worse and got them into more difficulties... but
A) she strikes me as strong willed and a bit of a loose cannon and B) the lies were so vast that it would have been difficult to write anything that didn't end up with some contradictions. By trying so hard to provide a valid explanation for their actions she ended up creating more contradictions and absurdities. But isn't that the nature of lies? Lies on top of lies on top of lies. I'm sure they would sleep better at night if they just came clean!!

by j.rob 29.09.14 13:22

PeterMac wrote:On Tuesday 1st it was totally overcast and windy and cold - So we went to the beach
The children did not want to go - so we hired a buggy and gave them no choice
We got to the beach and the children did not like the wet sand - so we sat on a bench
The children wanted ice-creams - so I went to buy them 25 yards away and didn't let them choose their own
It was still totally overcast and windy and cold - so we bought Gerry some sunglasses.
Gerry is a Consultant on 120k and is used to good quality things and I am on 80k as a GP - so we got cheap ones from a market stall
We took the children back to the creches at 4pm - So I forged the booking sheets and put 2:30
The whole trip, all 350 metres of it, (= 700m. there and back), in the freezing cold and the rain, and including the ice cream - took 3 and a half hours.

Kate, Gerry, Carter-Ruck, OG, shills, Kevin, and anyone else listening
Who do you think you are trying to kid ?

So what were the Mcs REALLY doing on Tuesday? I doubt it had much to do with spending 'quality time' with their children. Was Tuesday the day when Madeleine was whooshed from OC I wonder? (Sometimes I wonder whether she was even there, such is the absence of photos, DNA and so on).

by woodbine 29.09.14 13:45

HelenMeg wrote:Agree with most comments here.. you would have thought that with all the advice available she would not have written the book such that it made them look worse and got them into more difficulties... but
A) she strikes me as strong willed and a bit of a loose cannon and B) the lies were so vast that it would have been difficult to write anything that didn't end up with some contradictions. By trying so hard to provide a valid explanation for their actions she ended up creating more contradictions and absurdities. But isn't that the nature of lies? Lies on top of lies on top of lies. I'm sure they would sleep better at night if they just came clean!!

That's what I didn't understand and have questioned in my (very few) previous posts.

They apparently had all the best advice available to them - a media monitoring unit. Top advisors despatched to them immediately.

Wouldn't the very first piece of advice given to them be to stfu and talk only when absolutely necessary? Surely the book would have been heavily proof-read to ensure no more contradictions would appear. A proper timeline for the entire holiday would have been created, with minute details provided for each event, to be memorised by each person in on the plot. It just beggers belief that those trying to protect the mccanns are just allowing them to write and talk all this crap. If there was such a huge conspiracy, involving high ranking officials, would there come a point when these conspirators decide that something has to be done about this pair who seem to suffer from verbal diarrhea?

by HelenMeg 29.09.14 15:26

woodbine wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Agree with most comments here.. you would have thought that with all the advice available she would not have written the book such that it made them look worse and got them into more difficulties... but
A) she strikes me as strong willed and a bit of a loose cannon and B) the lies were so vast that it would have been difficult to write anything that didn't end up with some contradictions. By trying so hard to provide a valid explanation for their actions she ended up creating more contradictions and absurdities. But isn't that the nature of lies? Lies on top of lies on top of lies. I'm sure they would sleep better at night if they just came clean!!

That's what I didn't understand and have questioned in my (very few) previous posts.

They apparently had all the best advice available to them - a media monitoring unit. Top advisors despatched to them immediately.

Wouldn't the very first piece of advice given to them be to stfu and talk only when absolutely necessary? Surely the book would have been heavily proof-read to ensure no more contradictions would appear. A proper timeline for the entire holiday would have been created, with minute details provided for each event, to be memorised by each person in on the plot. It just beggers belief that those trying to protect the mccanns are just allowing them to write and talk all this crap. If there was such a huge conspiracy, involving high ranking officials, would there come a point when these conspirators decide that something has to be done about this pair who seem to suffer from verbal diarrhea?

Well the answer maybe that it is not the Mc Canns that are being protected at all - but the rest of the guests present at the Ocean Club that week. Therefore any attention falling on the Mc Canns is good news.
The VIPs are nicely kept out of the news. The more the Mc Canns get themselves into trouble the better for the rest of them.

by j.rob 29.09.14 15:37

woodbine wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Agree with most comments here.. you would have thought that with all the advice available she would not have written the book such that it made them look worse and got them into more difficulties... but
A) she strikes me as strong willed and a bit of a loose cannon and B) the lies were so vast that it would have been difficult to write anything that didn't end up with some contradictions. By trying so hard to provide a valid explanation for their actions she ended up creating more contradictions and absurdities. But isn't that the nature of lies? Lies on top of lies on top of lies. I'm sure they would sleep better at night if they just came clean!!

That's what I didn't understand and have questioned in my (very few) previous posts.

They apparently had all the best advice available to them - a media monitoring unit. Top advisors despatched to them immediately.

Wouldn't the very first piece of advice given to them be to stfu and talk only when absolutely necessary? Surely the book would have been heavily proof-read to ensure no more contradictions would appear. A proper timeline for the entire holiday would have been created, with minute details provided for each event, to be memorised by each person in on the plot. It just beggers belief that those trying to protect the mccanns are just allowing them to write and talk all this crap. If there was such a huge conspiracy, involving high ranking officials, would there come a point when these conspirators decide that something has to be done about this pair who seem to suffer from verbal diarrhea?

I think they might have been given several 'get out of jail free' cards in the past. When the inquiry was closed in July 2008 they could have just put their heads down. But of course they had Detective Amaral's book to contend with.

Then on 20th April 2009 they decided to sue Detective Amaral.

But the ultimately folly, imo, is their pressing of the British Government for a review of Madeleine's case. Presumably, they were hoping that the Government would come up with a lovely big whitewash to bury the whole thing once and for all. And the Mcs would live happily ever after.

"In November 2010 we started a petition to lobby the two Governments to conduct an independent review. We are at a loss to understand why such a commonly used procedure isn't an obvious option and why our request for such a review has gone unanswered." (Madeleine, page 366).

I think they just got too big for their boots. How could they possibly think that their silly timelines and all the bogey-men 'sightings' could stand up to any kind of scrutiny?

Also, it was complete folly to do all those TV interviews. They are there for ever. To be scrutinized. Their arrogance is their downfall, imo.

by woodbine 29.09.14 15:54

HelenMeg wrote:
woodbine wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Agree with most comments here.. you would have thought that with all the advice available she would not have written the book such that it made them look worse and got them into more difficulties... but
A) she strikes me as strong willed and a bit of a loose cannon and B) the lies were so vast that it would have been difficult to write anything that didn't end up with some contradictions. By trying so hard to provide a valid explanation for their actions she ended up creating more contradictions and absurdities. But isn't that the nature of lies? Lies on top of lies on top of lies. I'm sure they would sleep better at night if they just came clean!!

That's what I didn't understand and have questioned in my (very few) previous posts.

They apparently had all the best advice available to them - a media monitoring unit. Top advisors despatched to them immediately.

Wouldn't the very first piece of advice given to them be to stfu and talk only when absolutely necessary? Surely the book would have been heavily proof-read to ensure no more contradictions would appear. A proper timeline for the entire holiday would have been created, with minute details provided for each event, to be memorised by each person in on the plot. It just beggers belief that those trying to protect the mccanns are just allowing them to write and talk all this crap. If there was such a huge conspiracy, involving high ranking officials, would there come a point when these conspirators decide that something has to be done about this pair who seem to suffer from verbal diarrhea?
Well the answer maybe that it is not the Mc Canns that are being protected at all - but the rest of the guests present at the Ocean Club that week. Therefore any attention falling on the Mc Canns is good news.
The VIPs are nicely kept out of the news. The more the Mc Canns get themselves into trouble the better for the rest of them.

It would all come out though if undeniable evidence was brought to light or a tapas member cracks surely. I couldn't imagine the mccanns taking the fall and allowing whoever this VIP is to go scot-free. If one falls, they all do I would have thought. Unless, GM mans-up and takes it all on his shoulders....

Getting ahead of myself I know, but the point is, isn't there someone out there extremely nervous any time one of them appears on tv?

by **PeterMac** 29.09.14 15:57

I have been thinking about a list of lies, perhaps divided into three categories

Those which the McCanns ADMIT were lies
such as first reports of point of entry, shutters broken, curtains open or shut, and all the other places where their 180º change of story proves that the first (or the second ) story was not true

Those which other clear evidence shows were lies
Gerry saying it was a hot night, but everyone else saying it was cold, door and curtains slamming and whooshing on a flat calm night, taking the children back ot the creche for the last hour and a half, but in fact signing them in at 2:30, date on the Last Photo, and so on VERY long list of these !

Those which look Wrong, or are at best extremely dodgy.
Even longer list

But not on this thread. I''ll think some more and see what happens. Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 will be invaluable here.

by .Guest.. 29.09.14 16:01

PeterMac wrote:I have been thinking about a list of lies, perhaps divided into three categories

Those which the McCanns ADMIT were lies
such as first reports of point of entry, shutters broken, curtains open or shut, and all the other places where their 180º change of story proves that the first (or the second ) story was not true

Those which other clear evidence shows were lies
Gerry saying it was a hot night, but everyone else saying it was cold, door and curtains slamming and whooshing on a flat calm night, taking the children back ot the creche for the last hour and a half, but in fact signing them in at 2:30, date on the Last Photo, and so on VERY long list of these !

Those which look Wrong, or are at best extremely dodgy.
Even longer list

But not on this thread. I''ll think some more and see what happens. Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 will be invaluable here.

Good idea. I have a few to add. Hurry up with that new thread please. My brain is overflowing.

by Casey5 29.09.14 16:26

The big problem for the Macs was that, although the case was shelved, there were the unflattering Portuguese PJ and Judiciary conclusions to contend with. Also the Leicestershire police little titbit about how there was no evidence to prove or disprove their innocence. And, of course, Dr Amaral's book.
And Kate and Gerry want, above all, to be cleared by the Portuguese and the British police (and thereby the general public) of having anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearance - but without stepping inside a courtroom and being cross examined.
If they had kept their heads down and just got on with their lives there would always be a stigma attached to them, they wouldn't have been cleared and found "innocent" and that, imo, is what they strive for.

by j.rob 29.09.14 22:10

Casey5 wrote:The big problem for the Macs was that, although the case was shelved, there were the unflattering Portuguese PJ and Judiciary conclusions to contend with. Also the Leicestershire police little titbit about how there was no evidence to prove or disprove their innocence. And, of course, Dr Amaral's book.
And Kate and Gerry want, above all, to be cleared by the Portuguese and the British police (and thereby the general public) of having anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearance - but without stepping inside a courtroom and being cross examined.
If they had kept their heads down and just got on with their lives there would always be a stigma attached to them, they wouldn't have been cleared and found "innocent" and that, imo, is what they strive for.

Indeed. They are incredibly naive in this respect.

I think if they had just put their heads down, people would have got bored and lost interest.

They can't/couldn't really expect any more than that, imo. And I am sure that the people who supported them in the early days probably thought this too. Various people supported them/put their necks on the line.....but.....it was never enough........

Despite 7 years and hiring incredibly expensive lawyers, PR spin-doctors et al, courtesy of the 'Fund' they have failed to 'prove their innocence'.

They are latter day King Canutes. The tide cannot be stopped. They are attempting the impossible.

IMO.

by Casey5 30.09.14 16:18

j.rob:-
Despite 7 years and hiring incredibly expensive lawyers, PR spin-doctors et al, courtesy of the 'Fund' they have failed to 'prove their innocence'.

They are latter day King Canutes. The tide cannot be stopped. They are attempting the impossible.

They don't seem to realise that to be "found innocent" they would have to be charged with a crime and tried in a court of law and they haven't been and quite likely never will be unfortunately.
A rock and a hard place comes to mind. I would put liberty and a chance to bring up the other kids before this incredible urge to be seen as innocent.
I wonder if anyone has told them to STFU and keep their heads down?

by missbeetle 01.12.14 9:23

I've found a couple of photographs of Gerry wearing very budget-looking shades :

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

(snipped from imageforum-diffusion.afp.com) (snipped from rexfeatures.com)

They're bordering on the Stevie Wonder...!

My opinion only.

by MrsC 01.12.14 11:38

missbeetle wrote:I've found a couple of photographs of Gerry wearing very budget-looking shades :

They're bordering on the Stevie Wonder...!

My opinion only.

Just wondering what this observation has to do with the McCann mystery?

Maybe I'm missing something?

by rustyjames 01.12.14 13:02

MrsC wrote:
Just wondering what this observation has to do with the McCann mystery?

Maybe I'm missing something?

To be fair there is some relevance as they are the pair of sunglasses in the "last photo".

Another couple here dated on the AFP site as being 7th May 2007:

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

by Guest 01.12.14 13:09

[quote="Casey5"]j.rob:-
Despite 7 years and hiring incredibly expensive lawyers, PR spin-doctors et al, courtesy of the 'Fund' they have failed to 'prove their innocence'.

They are latter day King Canutes. The tide cannot be stopped. They are attempting the impossible.

They don't seem to realise that to be "found innocent" they would have to be charged with a crime and tried in a court of law and they haven't been and quite likely never will be unfortunately.
A rock and a hard place comes to mind. I would put liberty and a chance to bring up the other kids before this incredible urge to be seen as innocent.
I wonder if anyone has told them to STFU and keep their heads down?[/quote]

They do not have to prove their innocence

Public prosecution must prove their guilt

That's the system everywhere but for N. Korea perhaps