Re: Twitter:"Sunday the 12th of October is T-DAY for the McCann´s"

by nglfi 28.09.14 8:46

Unfortunately, if OG have been made aware of this and are allowing it to be published on twitter it can't be much of a revelation moment in my opinion. If it was that significant and ground breaking, and had the potential to prove the Macs guilt, I don't think the met would be allowing them to post it now and prejudice a possible future prosecution.

by The Rooster 28.09.14 9:18

Too much detail. She is making it all up! glee

by **PeterMac** 28.09.14 9:19

The weather that night was mild, with a light breeze,. In Faro it was recorded as reaching only Force 3. At 10pm only 14.4kph. This is the bottom end of Force 3.

Beaufort Force 3 Gentle breeze 12–19 km/h (3–5 m/s)
Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended.

This may set the scene
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/october/16/newsid_3174000/3174374.stm

1987: The great October storm
The winds which swept across southern Britain in October 1987 left the worst-hit areas totally devastated.
The storm uprooted millions of trees, ripped roofs off buildings, destroyed cars and even reduced an Isle of Wight pier to a pile of flotsam.
Many parts of the country were cut off from power and 18 people lost their lives in winds which reached 100 mph (161 km/h) in parts of the UK.

I was only seven at the time, living in Basildon, Essex.
I remember the wind being so strong that it blew the curtains horizontal to the ceiling (even though the window was only on vent).
The devastation the next day was incredible. I will never forget the house in Wickford Ave, Pitsea, losing its entire wall (the wall was lying flat on the ground still in one piece). All of us children thought it was great because the schools were closed.
Jason Lowe, UK

by **PeterMac** 28.09.14 9:24

The Rooster wrote:Too much detail. She is making it all up!

And her best friend said
Fiona Payne
And I remember the Thursday was a bit of a transition day, as I say, you know, with the weather, it just seemed to warm up, it was sunnier, erm, and it was a very pleasant evening, you know, it was a nice sunny evening, warm”

With a Force 6 - 7 wind ? ? ?
She is making it up, and moreover making it up many months after the event.
There is no mention of any of this in her first statement, nor in either of Gerry's
In their statements they say the curtains were wide open.

And a local resident says
'Thursday, 3 May 2007 Weather continues cool and cloudy with sunny intervals, but not pool dipping weather.
Noticed first evidence of weather change, as by 7.15 pm cloud was clearing from the North. Just after 11pm night sky clear with full moon
I arrived at my apartment about 11:45pm. It was a clear dry moonlit night . . . and it was good to reflect that better weather had now set in.
In fact, the rains did not return until 14 June."

Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 is proving invaluable

by Sceptic 28.09.14 10:41

nglfi wrote:Unfortunately, if OG have been made aware of this and are allowing it to be published on twitter it can't be much of a revelation moment in my opinion. If it was that significant and ground breaking, and had the potential to prove the Macs guilt, I don't think the met would be allowing them to post it now and prejudice a possible future prosecution.

EXACTLY!!!! - Any substantial worthwhile credible evidence released into the public domain at this time is a sure fire way of preventing any sort of prosecution of the perpetrators of Madeleines disappearance

by sallypelt 28.09.14 11:04

Lots of discussion on Twitter, this morning, about a "pro" being one of the nannies from the Ocean Club. Here is one of the tweets:

Peace, Love, Justice @LarryPKay

NANNY and TWEETER at Mark Warner Ocean Club Praia de Luz when Madeleine #McCann VANISHED admits
S W I N G I N G

There is a lot more information about this nanny on Twitter, for those who are interested.

by Markus 2 28.09.14 11:06

Sceptic wrote:
nglfi wrote:Unfortunately, if OG have been made aware of this and are allowing it to be published on twitter it can't be much of a revelation moment in my opinion. If it was that significant and ground breaking, and had the potential to prove the Macs guilt, I don't think the met would be allowing them to post it now and prejudice a possible future prosecution.
EXACTLY!!!! - Any substantial worthwhile credible evidence released into the public domain at this time is a sure fire way of preventing any sort of prosecution of the perpetrators of Madeleines disappearance

Interesting point . Maybe throw it out there, credible evidence maybe, enough to nail them. Will become dissected on forums, so no longer credible.
WHY THE 12TH OF OCTOBER something special about that date.!!!! Why bother with a date just say we are about to expose what we know, now on twitter no need of a date.
You have to hold on to this if they need support behind them but a very big ? imo

by Guest 28.09.14 12:07

I've never understood the significance of the door being open so much wider than how she and Gerry left it (slightly ajar) when they left for dinner. They'd been 2 other checks since then - Gerry and Matt - so the door would have been moved.

So Kate may well have expected the door to be in any position, so would not have assumed the openness meant the children had got out of bed to mischief-make. Not quite sure what the video is getting at here, because, so far, she can easily explain her thought processes and associated actions.

That being, there was no need to wonder at the door being wide because she knew of 2 people who had been through it in the meantime ( she wouldn't have known at that point that Matt hadn't actually gone through the door).

Must try harder 2and2.

by NickE 28.09.14 12:51

sallypelt wrote:Lots of discussion on Twitter, this morning, about a "pro" being one of the nannies from the Ocean Club. Here is one of the tweets:

Peace, Love, Justice @LarryPKay

NANNY and TWEETER at Mark Warner Ocean Club Praia de Luz when Madeleine #McCann VANISHED admits
S W I N G I N G

There is a lot more information about this nanny on Twitter, for those who are interested.

Amy T??

I have a feeling that some "antis" are double agents?.
After the "2&2" published this, it seems to be some nervous,"anti" tweeters.
I don´t know, just a feeling.

by Guest 28.09.14 12:59

Dee Coy wrote:So Kate may well have expected the door to be in any position, so would not have assumed the openness meant the children had got out of bed to mischief-make. Not quite sure what the video is getting at here, because, so far, she can easily explain her thought processes and associated actions.

Kate made a big deal about it and it could have meant the kids had got out of bed. It is not a given it was Gerry or Mat.

You would check.

by Guest 28.09.14 13:14

BlueBag wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:So Kate may well have expected the door to be in any position, so would not have assumed the openness meant the children had got out of bed to mischief-make. Not quite sure what the video is getting at here, because, so far, she can easily explain her thought processes and associated actions.

Kate made a big deal about it and it could have meant the kids had got out of bed. It is not a given it was Gerry or Mat.

You would check.

Tissue paper thin, I'm afraid. Nothing to put the McCanns on shaky ground or could be used as evidence in court, as 2&2 claim. All she has to do is say 'Well, I knew Gerry and Matt had been in the room already, so, although I noticed it, I wasn't too suprised."

Not necessarily doubting 2and2's motives, just saying they'll have to do better than this.

by Guest 28.09.14 13:20

Dee Coy wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:So Kate may well have expected the door to be in any position, so would not have assumed the openness meant the children had got out of bed to mischief-make. Not quite sure what the video is getting at here, because, so far, she can easily explain her thought processes and associated actions.

Kate made a big deal about it and it could have meant the kids had got out of bed. It is not a given it was Gerry or Mat.

You would check.

Tissue paper thin, I'm afraid. Nothing to put the McCanns on shaky ground or could be used as evidence in court, as 2&2 claim. All she has to do is say 'Well, I knew Gerry and Matt had been in the room already, so, although I noticed it, I wasn't too suprised."

Not necessarily doubting 2and2's motives, just saying they'll have to do better than this.

I agree... but it is one of those (many) things that make you go hmmmm... worth putting out there.

by **PeterMac** 28.09.14 13:50

I am getting bored with this now
What are the possibilities

Door open More than we left it, but Kate cannot have known because of the two previous visits - WE KNOW
Door cannot have slammed because there were no gusts of wind capable of doing that - WE KNOW
Curtains cannot have Whooshed because there were no gusts of wind sufficient to do this - WE KNOW
Kate almost did not look into the room - WE KNOW
Gerry almost did not look into the room - WE KNOW
No one else who visited looked into the room - WE KNOW
No Window of Opportunity now possible since Tannerman was trashed - WE KNOW
No smell of Chloroform at 9.30pm - WE KNOW
No smell of Cloroform at 10pm - WE KNOW
Last Photo tampered with so that there is no evidence Madeleie was even alive that evening WE KNOW

It is going to have to be good to "Force" the McCanns to say anything, against the advice of their highly paid lawyers.

by Dont Make Me Laff 28.09.14 15:34

Sorry to be a bore.... roses

Kate says as she closed the open door "and when it got to here" - the action she gives - jumps as though shocked - "it slammed" then says "I opened it and looking into the room" (bare in mind GM says was DARK) and she says "I didn't want to put the light on because I didn't want wake the children"
Question? - what did Kate expect to see? she would have been looking into a pitch black room !
Question? - surely the slamming, (that so shocked Kate that it made her jolt) would have woken the children?
Question? - Would Putting a light have made any difference?
Question? - (though I kinda know the answer) would the opening of the patio door have caused the kids room door to flow open (despite a window being closed)

by Sceptic 28.09.14 17:40

PeterMac wrote:I am getting bored with this now
What are the possibilities

Door open More than we left it, but Kate cannot have known because of the two previous visits - WE KNOW
Door cannot have slammed because there were no gusts of wind capable of doing that - WE KNOW
Curtains cannot have Whooshed because there were no gusts of wind sufficient to do this - WE KNOW
Kate almost did not look into the room - WE KNOW
Gerry almost did not look into the room - WE KNOW
No one else who visited looked into the room - WE KNOW
No Window of Opportunity now possible since Tannerman was trashed - WE KNOW
No smell of Chloroform at 9.30pm - WE KNOW
No smell of Cloroform at 10pm - WE KNOW
Last Photo tampered with so that there is no evidence Madeleie was even alive that evening WE KNOW

It is going to have to be good to "Force" the McCanns to say anything, against the advice of their highly paid lawyers.

with only 177 twitter followers - whatever they think or do have isnt exactly going to go viral - delussions of grandeur on their part i think of how many people are actually interested anymore

by Guest 28.09.14 17:50

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Sorry to be a bore....

Kate says as she closed the open door "and when it got to here" - the action she gives - jumps as though shocked - "it slammed" then says "I opened it and looking into the room" (bare in mind GM says was DARK) and she says "I didn't want to put the light on because I didn't want wake the children"
Question? - what did Kate expect to see? she would have been looking into a pitch black room !
Question? - surely the slamming, (that so shocked Kate that it made her jolt) would have woken the children?
Question? - Would Putting a light have made any difference?
Question? - (though I kinda know the answer) would the opening of the patio door have caused the kids room door to flow open (despite a window being closed)

Kate's amateur dramatics are a joy to behold.

by Dont Make Me Laff 28.09.14 17:57

BlueBag wrote:
Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Sorry to be a bore....

Kate says as she closed the open door "and when it got to here" - the action she gives - jumps as though shocked - "it slammed" then says "I opened it and looking into the room" (bare in mind GM says was DARK) and she says "I didn't want to put the light on because I didn't want wake the children"
Question? - what did Kate expect to see? she would have been looking into a pitch black room !
Question? - surely the slamming, (that so shocked Kate that it made her jolt) would have woken the children?
Question? - Would Putting a light have made any difference?
Question? - (though I kinda know the answer) would the opening of the patio door have caused the kids room door to flow open (despite a window being closed)

Kate's amateur dramatics are a joy to behold.

Of course they are but I cant blv a door would slam JUS AS KM got to it
unless someone PUSHES it from the other side?
OOO wait M said he thought he felt the presence of the ABDUCTER?

GIVE ME STRENGHT

by margaret 28.09.14 21:16

This is one big wind up. I'll be very, very surprised if these people come up with something nobody on any forum or blog has written about before!

If it was something earth shattering l very much doubt the met would let them release it, and why go to all this fanfare so the Mcs could find out what it is and CR them beforehand?

by Carrry On Doctor 28.09.14 22:39

Been away for a while......on sabbatical near Anstruther fish bar (the haddock is excellent BTW).

In the words of the eminent X-factor philosopher..........'Its a no from me'

by Okeydokey 28.09.14 22:43

Dee Coy wrote:I've never understood the significance of the door being open so much wider than how she and Gerry left it (slightly ajar) when they left for dinner. They'd been 2 other checks since then - Gerry and Matt - so the door would have been moved.

So Kate may well have expected the door to be in any position, so would not have assumed the openness meant the children had got out of bed to mischief-make. Not quite sure what the video is getting at here, because, so far, she can easily explain her thought processes and associated actions.

That being, there was no need to wonder at the door being wide because she knew of 2 people who had been through it in the meantime ( she wouldn't have known at that point that Matt hadn't actually gone through the door).

Must try harder 2and2.

No, I think the film makes a fair point. If you are concerned for your children, you would surely just do a quick visual check at the least, as it would take less than a second - it is odd behaviour to simply close the door without focussing on them, if only briefly.

Remember, MO claimed that he - from a position further outside the room - could see the twins and could see them breathing. Why couldn't Kate see them? Especially with the extra light from outside with the shutters up?

by Carrry On Doctor 28.09.14 22:45

I am rusty !

Should have posted the above on Tonys Smithman 4 thread.

Apologies.

by Okeydokey 28.09.14 22:47

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Sorry to be a bore....

Kate says as she closed the open door "and when it got to here" - the action she gives - jumps as though shocked - "it slammed" then says "I opened it and looking into the room" (bare in mind GM says was DARK) and she says "I didn't want to put the light on because I didn't want wake the children"
Question? - what did Kate expect to see? she would have been looking into a pitch black room !
Question? - surely the slamming, (that so shocked Kate that it made her jolt) would have woken the children?
Question? - Would Putting a light have made any difference?
Question? - (though I kinda know the answer) would the opening of the patio door have caused the kids room door to flow open (despite a window being closed)

No. You are wrong about it being pitch black. MO claimed he could see the twins from further away from where Kate was standing. So she should have been able to see them quite clearly. Also there would be more light coming into the room if the shutters were open. The McCanns gave evidence that they left a light on outside the bedroom so the children had some light (presumably to allow them to make their way to the patio doors in event of fire).

by maebee 28.09.14 23:27

The Rooster wrote:Too much detail. She is making it all up!

Yep. That vid is all about defending herself. She's acting out what she supposedly did. There's no grief for her missing daughter. None whatsoever in this clip Sad

by aiyoyo 28.09.14 23:30

BlueBag wrote:
Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Sorry to be a bore....

Kate says as she closed the open door "and when it got to here" - the action she gives - jumps as though shocked - "it slammed" then says "I opened it and looking into the room" (bare in mind GM says was DARK) and she says "I didn't want to put the light on because I didn't want wake the children"
Question? - what did Kate expect to see? she would have been looking into a pitch black room !
Question? - surely the slamming, (that so shocked Kate that it made her jolt) would have woken the children?
Question? - Would Putting a light have made any difference?
Question? - (though I kinda know the answer) would the opening of the patio door have caused the kids room door to flow open (despite a window being closed)

Kate's amateur dramatics are a joy to behold.

I think you mean a pain to watch.

by Constablekid 29.09.14 1:43

Perhaps someone has finally uploaded these video clips to that new Silent Talker lie detector that was demonstrated in a tv documentary recently?

AIMO.

by aiyoyo 29.09.14 13:45

Unless there is a significant to T-day, which isn't explained to us yet, count-down to T-day is just a game I think.

OG was given it, so why not just post up? Why give advance notice to Mccanns that the video is going viral?

They can hope to "force" the Mcs to reply, but hope is one thing, and reality is another matter.

Didn't a madcap SA guy hope to force the Mccanns to respond to corpse underneath Murat's driveway, and look how that went?

by aiyoyo 29.09.14 13:48

Constablekid wrote:Perhaps someone has finally uploaded these video clips to that new Silent Talker lie detector that was demonstrated in a tv documentary recently?

AIMO.

What are you saying?
That the imminent T-day video will have incorporated this new lie detector device that demonstrates Kate was lying?
If there is such a marvellous device why aren't the police using it?

by Constablekid 29.09.14 15:03

I think lie detector results cannot be submitted as evidence in a court of law, so perhaps not so useful to the police. And I guess in a cover up scenario they wouldn't use the tool anyway if it gave them an undesirable result.

I'm guessing it would be more of interest to the general public, eg if put on YouTube, and could change some minds.

It's supposed to be much more reliable than the old test but it's still in development I believe. I think it's located at Manchester uni. You can read about it here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Talker_Lie_Detector

Only an idea. T day is probably something else - I wouldn't be surprised if it's just old news like others have suggested.

But part of me wishes I went to Manchester uni so I could take a video clip and see what result the new tool gave. And I think that WOULD go viral.

AIMO.

by aiyoyo 29.09.14 19:33

Constablekid wrote:I think lie detector results cannot be submitted as evidence in a court of law, so perhaps not so useful to the police. And I guess in a cover up scenario they wouldn't use the tool anyway if it gave them an undesirable result.
.

May be so, not tangible evidence for Court purpose, but can be useful tool to police nonetheless as indication which direction to focus on in the investigation. Knowing where suspects lied in their narratives would be useful as pointers to re-interrogate them on highlighted areas.

by Constablekid 29.09.14 20:35

aiyoyo wrote:
Constablekid wrote:I think lie detector results cannot be submitted as evidence in a court of law, so perhaps not so useful to the police. And I guess in a cover up scenario they wouldn't use the tool anyway if it gave them an undesirable result.
.

May be so, not tangible evidence for Court purpose, but can be useful tool to police nonetheless as indication which direction to focus on in the investigation. Knowing where suspects lied in their narratives would be useful as pointers to re-interrogate them on highlighted areas.

Good point. But who knows what they are up to!

Latest topics