Re: Sunglasses - Bizarre

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

by j.rob 01.12.14 15:02

Monty Heck wrote:This is taken from the book. [edited]
" 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.

So, it's overcast, the children seem content to go back to their clubs, yet this of all days the one to borrow a double buggy and take a trip to the beach. A buggy which would have been tricky to manoeuvre on PDL beach whilst carrying a toddler apiece, with a third child in tow. Strange M didn't also give her parents her tuppence worth regarding the wet sand or the rain, considering that family members said she had plenty to say for a child of her age, and if K was racking her brains to remember every detail, why does she only recall the reaction of her children who were lacking in the speech department? Agree it seems an odd thing to be buying sunglasses on the way back from a beach you've just had to leave because of rain. Or to recall such a detail when one appears to have remembered nothing at all about what was said or done during this episode by the child who went missing. Odd for a small child to have nothing memorable to say on a trip to the beach, whether it rained or not. A curious silence or simply not worth noting?

Bet this beach visit never happened. Or at least not with all FIVE of them including Madeleine. I think something had happened to Madeleine by Tuesday. Hence the need to over-egg events and activities on Tuesday. Madeleine looking gorgeous on the mini-tennis court clutching tennis balls or a type which are not used for children's mini-tennis. The dodgy tennis balls photo. Choosing to go to the beach when the weather is bad. When your children are not enthusiastic - they would have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, according to Kate.

Pretty much everything she writes, imo, is either a downright lie or nonsensical. Why take children to the beach when it is raining and they would be just as happy going to their clubs?

This is all deliberate deception, as always. Look this way not that way. The trouble is, she does it so badly as, in her intense efforts to deceive, she often makes no sense at all. That's how it looks to me anyway.

by **PeterMac** 01.12.14 15:25

j.rob wrote:
This is all deliberate deception, as always. Look this way not that way. The trouble is, she does it so badly as, in her intense efforts to deceive, she often makes no sense at all. That's how it looks to me anyway.

Quite so.
None of it makes any sense.
In fact the dogs are the only things which do.

by j.rob 01.12.14 15:28

Ah, just re-read the whole thread and can see that my last post is pretty much redundant. But WHAT were the McCanns REALLY doing on Tuesday??? This is the million dollar question? My gut feeling is that this may have been the day that Madeleine was removed from apartment 5A (assuming she was ever in that apartment in the first place - there were so few signs of her DNA). Maybe removed on Tuesday and I would have thought almost certainly by Wednesday. Presumably, if there is any credence in the substitute story, on these days Gerry would sign in another child instead of Madeleine. (And I do agree that the creche signatures are remarkably similar.)

It all seems like such a crazy plan. But The Joker likes games and riddles, imo. He likes hoodwinking people and creating drama.

by missbeetle 10.12.14 20:09

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Another sunglasses close-up.

Kate looks like a Hollywood bird and Gerry remarkably like a Tom Cruiser.

My opinion only.

by ultimaThule 10.12.14 21:41

Gezza looks like Tom Cruise? With a nose like that, missb? nah

As fpr Kate looking like a Hollywood bird, would that be the Common Loon?

by missbeetle 10.12.14 22:12

ultimaThule wrote:Gezza looks like Tom Cruise? With a nose like that, missb?

As fpr Kate looking like a Hollywood bird, would that be the Common Loon?

Hello ultimaThule -

Mr Mapother IV is, alas, no stranger to the art of surgical nose refinement.

Here's a picture of him showing Hollywood love to a soft toy -

- whilst showing off his Tippex veneers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(undated photograph snipped from Bing images)

Bit of a honker there I'd say?

Good call on the Common Loon. It is the provincial bird of Ontario -

- would not Rev Hubbard hear its woeful cry in his Canadian countryside?

Worth a listen :

My thoughts only.

by Guest 10.12.14 23:59

missbeetle wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(undated photograph snipped from Bing images)

Jeez, the fella looks like his own waxwork, but I guess that's Hollywood for you!

by Gaggzy 11.12.14 0:31

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

'Watch out. This thing's got teeth that could chew through a washing line in three seconds flat,' the rabbit said.

by ultimaThule 11.12.14 2:43

missbeetle wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Gezza looks like Tom Cruise? With a nose like that, missb?

As fpr Kate looking like a Hollywood bird, would that be the Common Loon?

Hello ultimaThule -

Mr Mapother IV is, alas, no stranger to the art of surgical nose refinement.

Here's a picture of him showing Hollywood love to a soft toy -

- whilst showing off his Tippex veneers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(undated photograph snipped from Bing images)

Bit of a honker there I'd say?

Good call on the Common Loon. It is the provincial bird of Ontario -

- would not Rev Hubbard hear its woeful cry in his Canadian countryside?

Worth a listen :

My thoughts only.

Cute pic of Tom with Cuddlebunny before his comforter was audited, missb, and at least Mr Mapother IV appears to have a genuine smile on his face, unlike the look of sneering derision which is a distinctive feature of the anti~~Christ~~hero.

In my earlier post I likened Kate to the Common Loon and now wish to amend this analogy to her resembling the common loon who can be found falling out of bars and clubs in the early hours.

As for the melodic but haunting call of the bird, as with so many of those who are of a religious persusion I suspect that Father Hubbard hears only what he wants to hear.

by missbeetle 08.03.15 20:04

Another sunglasses picture I don't recall having seen before :

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

by suzyjohnson 09.03.15 2:46

IMO the sad thing about the Tuesday afternoon beach story is that all afternoon, turns out, in reality, to be less than 2 hours. A bit like the outing on the first evening to the Millenium restaurant, when they decided they weren't going to do that again.

by missbeetle 08.09.15 5:33

Another interesting picture of Gerald P McCann's mysterious sunglasses :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(dated 6th July, 2007)

What a bad-tempered and thuggish-faced man...

...close-up, he looks to have been given the bash -

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

My observation only.

by **sharonl** 08.09.15 7:20

suzyjohnson wrote:IMO the sad thing about the Tuesday afternoon beach story is that all afternoon, turns out, in reality, to be less than 2 hours. A bit like the outing on the first evening to the Millenium restaurant, when they decided they weren't going to do that again.

The children were back at the crèche by 2.30 having been collected at 12.30, they had lunch in between. Did that trip to the beach really take place? Did the McCanns take the kids with them? Did they really take a hired buggy?

by **PeterMac** 08.09.15 8:00

sharonl wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:IMO the sad thing about the Tuesday afternoon beach story is that all afternoon, turns out, in reality, to be less than 2 hours. A bit like the outing on the first evening to the Millenium restaurant, when they decided they weren't going to do that again.

The children were back at the crèche by 2.30 having been collected at 12.30, they had lunch in between.
Did that trip to the beach really take place? Did the McCanns take the kids with them? Probably not. It is in the book merely as a "Version" of the truth - not The Truth
Did they really take a hired buggy? Unlikely

by DaTroof 08.09.15 10:21

Creche records (assuming they are accurate) suggest beach trip was Monday not Tuesday. On Tuesday Madeleine was signed out at 12.20 & signed back into creche at 14.30 leaving only 2hrs total for lunch & the beach trip. On Monday Madeleine was signed out of the creche at 12.10 & returned to the creche at 15.15 that day, leaving about three hours for lunch & the trip to the beach. This also fits with the creche timetable for the week which has a mini tennis session on Monday morning. Kate describes Madeleine playing tennis on the morning of the day they went to the beach.

If the beach trip was on Tuesday lunch & getting ready to leave would take the best part of an hour & the walk to & from the beach with three small children & buggie(s) at least 15 minutes each way that leaves a maximum of about an hour and a half at the beach. Not a long time, but perhaps just long enough for Kate's account to be true. Kate does not actually mention having lunch at all on the day of the beach trip, but it does not seem likely that they did not give their children at least something to eat before setting off for the beach.

Of course this leaves one big, no, HUGE question: Why did Kate get the day of the beach trip wrong in her book?

I cannot accept that she was simply muddled about which day this occurred.