Re: Forensic linguistics -

by Guest 04.01.12 20:33

Smokeandmirrors wrote:When Sandra asked them about sightings at the end and they said they couldn't remember, well you bloody well would remember wouldn't you? What a crock. There was one where there was a DNA test done on a glass, and they couldn't remember that? And he smirked when he recounted Janes egg man, two sighting on the night, forgot to mention that the Smith sighting only came to light because he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. How ridiculous. All these clips of them taking the p... in interviews should be compiled one after the other on a DVD and sent to a body language expert who will do a prof. analysis pro bono, then onto SY!

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

by **tigger** 09.01.12 17:09

I edited this as much as I could, I really like this analysis. Dr. M. Roberts, Mccannfiles, 2007.
quote:
Q (Antena 3): October 2007 "Do you still maintain the hope, that is, genuinely believe that Madeleine is still alive?"

KM: "I do, maybe even more so, I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there, errm... I think she's probably in someone's house. .....snipped ... I feel in my heart really that she's there and I don't believe Madeleine's been taken from us permanently. ...snipped

(n.b. I believe = I am uncertain. I strongly believe = I seriously doubt. I don't believe (x) = I am more certain of (y) than (x)).

Superficially, it seems KM is clinging to the hope that Madeleine is 'on loan' somewhere. The underlying logic of her final remark suggests otherwise, as do her various lapses into the past tense when speaking of Madeleine, e.g. the October observation, "I know Madeleine was very happy with her life" .. snipped

We should also look very carefully at the statement, "I don't believe Madeleine has been taken away from us permanently."

It sounds as though KM is referring to a visit from Social Services. Whilst it is tempting to speculate about a subliminal anxiety, that would perhaps be straying too far afield. The sentence structure is subtle and complex even so; altogether more elaborate than necessary ('I don't believe Madeleine will be missing forever' would have sufficed).

Once more, bearing in mind a universal propensity to avoid telling lies on camera, it is noticeable how KM steers clear of the ambivalent constructs 'taken'/'taken from us' (references, in common parlance, to someone's passing away) by expedient insertion of the preposition 'away', implying abduction. Her intention is to suggest that Madeleine's absence is a temporary state of affairs, 'permanently' being a part of what KM does not believe. However, the phrase 'from us' presents an obtrusive and, one might contend, altogether superfluous extension to her argument, as the protagonists in this drama have been identified long since.
snip
Let us consider theft for a moment. When describing something we've lost to a thief we might say, 'it was stolen'. If more detail were required we might add 'from my car' (house, handbag etc.) none of which necessarily implies that we were present at the time. The statement 'it was stolen from me', on the other hand, immediately makes us a party to the act.

It is something of a puzzle as to how, given our instinctual avoidance of telling lies, GM was able to make his unforgettable homecoming statement on the airport runway without showing any obvious sign of discomfort ('...except to say that we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine.'). Although he substituted 'disappearance' for 'abduction', the opening disclaimer, 'we played no part in', remains troublesome. If this was not lying, might that have been because GM privately and deliberately misconstrued 'no part' as 'no active part', thereby dismissing any connection with the contributory negligence of child abandonment? Or was he being absolutely truthful? There may be sufficient evidence to confirm that Madeleine was not the victim of a 'stranger abduction', but how do we know someone else did not make her 'disappear'? We do not. And if the McCanns were not directly responsible for any injury to the child in the first instance, then GM's statement is entirely valid and entirely truthful into the bargain.

What this brings us to, I believe, is the very real possibility that the McCanns had help in squaring the situation, and that KM's statement ("I don't believe Madeleine has been taken away from us permanently.") is alluding, literally, to a handover.

Tacit confirmation of Madeleine's demise comes from both parties at around 25th May, barely three weeks after Madeleine's reported disappearance, when interviewed for ITV.

Q: "What do you think happened to her?"

GM: "All I can say is that, you know, the information is that she's been abducted. We don't know who's done it and it doesn't help... speculation really doesn't help us. We know that she's gone, we do not believe that, err... she's dead. I truly believe that she's alive and we will not give up looking for her."

This brief episode is richly informative. The opening remark is a classic. GM is only prepared to reveal what he can say. There is without doubt something that he cannot. The information (only - not the actuality necessarily) is that she's been abducted. In the next sentence we need to appreciate that the second instance of the pronoun 'it' does not represent the noun 'speculation', which follows an interruption. If it did, GM would simply have continued with 'to speculate'. There is clearly something else to be added to the phrase 'it doesn't help'; something which GM deliberately cuts off. The mere insertion of the word 'anyway', for example, would have put a completely different complexion on things.

There is an interruption in the next sentence also. Whatever it was that GM was prepared to announce as something they did not believe, it was not that Madeleine was dead. There is a conspicuous pause for thought, with the result that 'she's dead' becomes dissociated as a stand-alone remark.

Adopting the argument that belief equals uncertainty, GM first declares the child dead, the phrase 'she's dead' being divorced from the antecedent 'We do not believe that', then reaffirms this statement by saying he 'truly believes (he strongly doubts) she's alive.'

Q: "And you've said that you won't go home either but at some point you may have to go home. Whe... At what point do you decide: 'Our lives must continue, we've got two other children, we have to get on?"

KM: "I mean, at this... at this moment in time I cannot think about going home without Madeleine, errr... and we certainly have no plans at all to go home with Madeleine... without Madeleine."

This last, telling remark, is complete in itself. 'Without Madeleine' is a corrective addendum.

Madeleine's death would of course imply that the 'abduction' is a charade, just as GM tells us when he says, "everyone is acting, some in big ways." Superficially it seems as if GM is expressing gratitude for the magnanimity of the general public, but to suppose that everyone refers to the entire population of planet earth would be presumptuous in the extreme. Everyone ought also to 'take action' if they genuinely mean to help. GM is clearly not referring to the world as a whole, but to a discrete group of actors, some with bigger parts to play than others.
unquote
25th May, no plans to go home with Madeleine - not yet buried? Still in someones' house/cellar?

by **tigger** 11.01.12 9:53

kikoraton wrote:Maybe the Lobster group was cancelled, tho I wouldn't be sure about that. But the Jellyfish Group certainly did meet - Ma Webster took the twins along.

I missed this point earlier. It's probably too late to find the creche records for the week following 3/5. Or the week preceding that, that is imo a sure fire way to note irregularities. I'm sure Stella and you are right on the creche records.
The whole deception hangs together like links in a chain, the counter argument is that there are simply too many people involved for a deception to have worked. Imo it's really simple: you do a favour for a friend who will otherwise get into trouble, like having him sign in your child. There is always some payback or perhaps you owe him. That's how the criminal underworld works, very efficiently. Once you're in, there's no way you getting out of jail free. Find out you've been part of a much larger scheme, you simply know nothing and praise the guy who's dropped you in it to the skies. Perhaps at a later stage, you can now ask a favour of him.

by Gillyspot 11.01.12 11:04

tigger wrote:Madeleine's death would of course imply that the 'abduction' is a charade, just as GM tells us when he says, "everyone is acting, some in big ways." [/b]

Where does that quote come from? "Everyone is acting, some in big ways" seems like someone is being deceptive in their actions (i.e. acting) from that phrase.

by **tigger** 11.01.12 12:55

Gillyspot wrote:
tigger wrote:Madeleine's death would of course imply that the 'abduction' is a charade, just as GM tells us when he says, "everyone is acting, some in big ways." [/b]

quote from Mccannfiles, dr. Roberts, 2007.

Where does that quote come from? "Everyone is acting, some in big ways" seems like someone is being deceptive in their actions (i.e. acting) from that phrase.

The likelihood of Madeleine having been abducted is vanishingly small when assessed in terms of mathematical probability, and we must therefore consider an alternative fate. A lengthy statement by GM to ITV on 25th May, 2007 opens the door somewhat.

GM: "We truly believe that a member of the public holds the information to unlock where Madeleine is being kept. They either will have seen something, that will lead to the abductor being traced, or they will notice suspicious behaviour from someone, and we truly believe that and I think, you know, we cannot have imagined how successful our campaign to keep the publicity going, regarding her disappearance, has been, but it's because people have seen that and with information technology, the world is so much smaller, we believe that there truly is a feeling here that the people will not allow this to happen and they want Madeleine to be found and everyone is acting, some in big ways; every small piece of action here helps the search."

From the Dr. M. Roberts' interviews analyses, 2007, Mccannfiles. I always put the reference above the quote rather than below.

by **tigger** 11.01.12 13:03

I've been mulling over this phrase and would appreciate any way that could be finished in a logical way. Rest of the quote is above. Bear in mind that this interview was on the 25th May 2007

quoteKM: "I mean, at this... at this moment in time I cannot think about going home without Madeleine, errr... and we certainly have no plans at all to go home with Madeleine... without Madeleine."

This last, telling remark, is complete in itself. 'Without Madeleine' is a corrective addendum.unquote (dr. M. Roberts, Mccannfiles.)

no plans to go home with Madeleine -
not yet buried?
not yet found? (this would be nonsense, since they themselves said that she'd been taken over the Spanish border. Mmmm, were they telling the truth? Huelva?
not ......

by **tigger** 11.01.12 15:22

This is John McCann having a go: the audio clip can be heard on: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Quote; (snipped here and there - see link above for full text )
DECEMBER 10TH, 2008 (reference about Mccannfundfraud.)

When the DNA evidence was first brought to light, John McCann appeared on Sky Television in an interview.

Interestingly, and never challenged at the time, John went into elaborate detail about the car hired by brother Gerry and said;

“…but some of the, some of the stuff that’s being speculated on just isn’t plausible. Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense.

Did John make an amazing Freudian Slip? Why did John mention “5 weeks” when he was talking in September 2007 – months after Madeleine had disappeared?

The facts are that the car had been hired on May 27 – 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. 24 days is a significantly shorter time than 5 weeks.

So, what could be significant about something happening 5 weeks after Madeleine’s demise?

5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared was the weekend commencing Friday June 8, 2007. When we look closely at that weekend, there are several interesting things to note:

The McCann family flew in to the Algarve or were already there for that weekend. Susan and Brian Healy – Kate’s parents – were there. Trish and Sandy Cameron – Gerry’s sister and his brother in-law were there. Philomena flew in to Lisbon and Kate’s long time friend Anne-Marie Wright and her husband Michael had flown in to Faro.

Michael told the police that he and his wife flew in with the specific job of looking after Sean and Amelie while Kate and Gerry went to Morocco on Sunday June 10. Given the large number of close family relatives in town, Michael’s statement to the police is flawed.

On Saturday June 9, 2007, the entire family is supposed to have spent a day at the southwestern tip of Portugal – a town called Sagres.

Was Madeleine disposed of during the weekend of June 8? Did John McCann inadvertently let it slip that this was the weekend when Madeleine was finally laid to rest or disposed of?

Unquote

by rainbow-fairy 11.01.12 16:14

tigger, there is one logical end to the phrase Kate McCann mentioned. If she added the words 'still missing' to the end. However, this would ONLY work if the subject were being 100% truthful.
Here is where we hit a problem. As you well know, one of the basic premises of FL is that the brain will wherever possible leak the truth. If we look at Kate's statement again, we can see that there is no problem to start. If Kate truly didn't know where Madeleine was OR knew EXACTLY where she was, she could still speak the words truthfully - at the beginning.
"I mean, at this... at this moment in time I cannot think about going home without Madeleine,err... R-F:This would be a true statement whether Kate knew Madeleine's whereabouts or not; put simply, they weren't thinking of leaving without her (live or body) ...and we certainly have no plans at all to go home with Madeleine (still missing)R-F:- Simply put, had Madeleine truly been abducted with whereabouts unknown, 'still missing' would be the only sensible ending to this sentence. So we have to ask ourselves, Why did Kate not say this? Why did she add the correction 'without Madeleine'? It was pointless as she had in the very sentence before said the exact same thing!
This is a classic case of the brain trying to force out the truth. The fact that Kate was so resistant to saying the words 'With Madeleine still missing' STRONGLY suggests that she knew this was not the case. Even more simply put, she is lying and Madeleines whereabouts were 100% known to her. Of this I have very little doubt.
People who do not understand FL often think that choice of words is irrelevant. They are very relevant. The brain has already chosen and lined up the words it needs to speak the truth quite unconsciously. Its when these words leak out that we get the corrective phrases. The truth does not need correction. This is why it is such an important tool in picking up deceptions.

It may well be, tigger, that what Kate was thinking was along the lines of 'with Madeleine - not yet buried' or 'with Madeleine - not yet moved to her final place'.
It is certain, however that the above phrase is , without a shadow of a doubt, 100% deceptive.

by **tigger** 11.01.12 16:33

This is from Sky News, july 2007. snipped here and there
The parents of Madeleine McCann have told Sky News they will stay in Portugal until they find their missing daughter.

Brian is chairman of Madeleine's Fund, now in itself a full-time job. So far it has raised more than £900,000. 76 days into the project!

Responding to criticism that the McCanns would not have had so much help if they weren't doctors, he said: "It's true we have friends we could call on that others may not have - [b]and we used them, we called in favours. Favours! John McCann said something similar.

"Our view is that any parent wherever they are, whatever they do, should get the same publicity as Madeleine has and if we can do anything through the fund for others then we will." We're still waiting to see the Fund spend a penny on other truly lost children. unquote

by **kikoraton** 11.01.12 18:48

"Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense."

I like to bear in mind that the released PJ files do not show who had the Renault between (IIRC) 12 April and 8 May. There's an unexplained gap there.

How about "we certainly don't intend to go home with Madeleine still capable of raking in so much money for us."

by monkey mind 11.01.12 20:12

......still in that freezer”

by aiyoyo 12.01.12 14:42

tigger wrote:This is John McCann having a go: the audio clip can be heard on: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Quote; (snipped here and there - see link above for full text )
DECEMBER 10TH, 2008 (reference about Mccannfundfraud.)

When the DNA evidence was first brought to light, John McCann appeared on Sky Television in an interview.

Interestingly, and never challenged at the time, John went into elaborate detail about the car hired by brother Gerry and said;

“…but some of the, some of the stuff that’s being speculated on just isn’t plausible. Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense.

Did John make an amazing Freudian Slip? Why did John mention “5 weeks” when he was talking in September 2007 – months after Madeleine had disappeared?

The facts are that the car had been hired on May 27 – 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. 24 days is a significantly shorter time than 5 weeks.

So, what could be significant about something happening 5 weeks after Madeleine’s demise?

5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared was the weekend commencing Friday June 8, 2007. When we look closely at that weekend, there are several interesting things to note:

The McCann family flew in to the Algarve or were already there for that weekend. Susan and Brian Healy – Kate’s parents – were there. Trish and Sandy Cameron – Gerry’s sister and his brother in-law were there. Philomena flew in to Lisbon and Kate’s long time friend Anne-Marie Wright and her husband Michael had flown in to Faro.

So it might be quite reasonable to posit these questions:
Was the congregation of both sides family to brainstorm Maddie's final resting place?
Why did Philomena fly to Libson when the rest were in PDL?
Why did kate's best mate Anne Marie Wright and spouse fly to Faro instead?
Were they there to influence friends to help? Or were they spread out so as to distract Police surveillance of the mccanns?

The 5-week remark is indeed intriguing!

Michael told the police that he and his wife flew in with the specific job of looking after Sean and Amelie while Kate and Gerry went to Morocco on Sunday June 10. Given the large number of close family relatives in town, Michael’s statement to the police is flawed.

On Saturday June 9, 2007, the entire family is supposed to have spent a day at the southwestern tip of Portugal – a town called Sagres.

Was Madeleine disposed of during the weekend of June 8? Did John McCann inadvertently let it slip that this was the weekend when Madeleine was finally laid to rest or disposed of?

Unquote

by **tigger** 14.01.12 14:17

From the rogatory interview with David Payne re the missing tennis bag.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.” unquote

Nothing you could HIDE a tennis racket in....

by rainbow-fairy 14.01.12 17:48

tigger wrote:From the rogatory interview with David Payne re the missing tennis bag.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.” unquote

Nothing you could HIDE a tennis racket in....

tigger, thank you so much for posting this one up Wink

I've always thought that this statement is the most unbelievable thing I've ever read, and points so blatantly towards concealment. How ANYONE can read this and BELIEVE they are telling the truth is beyond you.
Mind you, not for want of trying - boy oh boy was Fiona Payne's brain desperately trying to tell the truth here! For goodness sake, you don't hide a pencil in a pencil case, you don't hide a match in a matchbox and you sure as heck don't HIDE A TENNIS RAQUET IN A TENNIS BAG - you PUT it in there. Not a turn of phrase, not a mistake, just the pesky old truth leaking...
Says it all IMO

by **tigger** 14.01.12 19:17

I also think that the 'there was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racket etc...

the a, a is hugely significant imo because he is casting round for a word that is not 'body' or 'child'!

by russiandoll 14.01.12 19:36

DP could try I guess to argue that as a bright man he heard this strange question about a bag...wondered about the relevance and quickly concluded what route the questioning might well be going down....that was why that "hiding "word was in his brain. I for one do not buy it.
If a bag means nothing else to you but a receptacle for a bit of sports gear or a drink, why on earth would that word " hiding" be anywhere in your head......and so close to the surface that it comes out as and when it does. I would have expected a straightforward response, from a person with nothing to HIDE ,to finish where highlighted in blue.
There was not a follow up q from police at that point, just an acknowledgement of what DP had said. And why bring up the size of said bag? He was only asked about a kit bag, which come in various sizes, gym gear, running gear, sports gear; surely the police did not think Gerry was carrying around the gear Andy Murray would. How did a kit bag become a great big tennis bag? again, look at what is in red... look at how he first maximises the size of the bag, then minimizes it. Only big enough for water !! and all he was asked about was a kit bag. Not big enough to hide a tennis racquet in..... he gets into a right tizz with that entire answer. If there was a bag at all.....did he never see them at the tennis courts then ?
Nah, he is saying way, way too much here.
I am off now to hide my dinner in the oven. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[quote="rainbow-fairy"][quote="tigger"]From the rogatory interview with David Payne re the missing tennis bag.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.” unquote

Nothing you could HIDE a tennis racket in....

by russiandoll 14.01.12 20:16

tigger wrote:I also think that the 'there was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racket etc...

the a, a is hugely significant imo because he is casting round for a word that is not 'body' or 'child'!

I agree .

Maybe nothing wrong with that "etc" bit, but I found it very strange and therefore significant, that he said "could hide a tennis racquet OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. "

What is he referring to here? Something else that could be in the bag clearly, because he would have stopped at tennis racquet,had he used the word "put" rather than "hide". Also he could be thinking of another activity to do with the bag......."hide, or anything like that ".

by **tigger** 14.01.12 20:56

Thanks Rainbow Fairy and Russian Doll for getting even more out of this. Amazing isn't it. Hope you found your dinner hiding in the oven!

by **kikoraton** 14.01.12 21:07

And what sort of detective is 1485 to let Payne get away with this obvious calamity????
Payne is an idiot, with a mouth several sizes too large. See also his comments about how mouth-wateringly gorgeous Madeleine was. Yuck!

by Liz Eagles 14.01.12 21:16

kikoraton wrote:And what sort of detective is 1485 to let Payne get away with this obvious calamity????
Payne is an idiot, with a mouth several sizes too large. See also his comments about how mouth-wateringly gorgeous Madeleine was. Yuck!

Payne managed to evade answering a few things and I thought it was odd that 1485 didn't press him. I found DP's statement the most disturbing followed by his wife and Dianne Webster's.

Tick me off if I'm straying from the topic but if I had a printer I'd print off the statements, highlight the specific questions asked to all of the T7, put their answers side by side and post the results.

by **Nina** 14.01.12 21:29

kikoraton wrote:And what sort of detective is 1485 to let Payne get away with this obvious calamity????
Payne is an idiot, with a mouth several sizes too large. See also his comments about how mouth-wateringly gorgeous Madeleine was. Yuck!

Hi Kikoraton. Yes, if you were to read this without knowing who he was referring to you wouldn't imagine he was speaking of a little girl would you?

by Guest 14.01.12 22:29

I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

by uppatoffee 14.01.12 22:47

Jean wrote:I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Quite agree Jean. 'Pleasing her' is such an odd turn of phrase to use in a totally innocent context. There are so many more natural sounding expressions you could use ie 'happy to see her excitement at...' unless of course that does not correctly convey they sentiment you are after Kate.

by **tigger** 15.01.12 8:20

uppatoffee wrote:
Jean wrote:I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Quite agree Jean. 'Pleasing her' is such an odd turn of phrase to use in a totally innocent context. There are so many more natural sounding expressions you could use ie 'happy to see her excitement at...' unless of course that does not correctly convey they sentiment you are after Kate.

On a long post on MM re JonBenet Ramsey, a now 37 yr old woman has given evidence of widespread paedophilia of which she was a victim.
The children were taught to say to the 'guests': 'It pleases me to please you'. :bad:

by rainbow-fairy 15.01.12 11:44

tigger wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:
Jean wrote:I would also not expect a mother to use the words "loving and pleasing her and enjoying her delight" about her young daughter as Kate does in her book.

Quite agree Jean. 'Pleasing her' is such an odd turn of phrase to use in a totally innocent context. There are so many more natural sounding expressions you could use ie 'happy to see her excitement at...' unless of course that does not correctly convey they sentiment you are after Kate.

On a long post on MM re JonBenet Ramsey, a now 37 yr old woman has given evidence of widespread paedophilia of which she was a victim.
The children were taught to say to the 'guests': 'It pleases me to please you'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Jean, uppatoffee, tigger,
The indications are all there, and there are so many of them - reminds me of that saying 'If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....'
Poor Madeleine Sad

by Guest 16.01.12 17:22

Not seen this interview before from spanish tv. Mccanns were asked about the reconstruction.

Concha García Campoy: I'd like to ask you two or three questions about doubts in the investigation; I understand that this is a bit painful. It is said that you have not collaborated in a reconstruction of the facts, neither your friends.

Gerry McCann: Especially some of our friends, and how we had been treated, they did not feel that the proposed reconstruction, errr... would have any way gone to helping find Madeleine. No one wanted to do anything [unclear] among our friends [unclear]. To do anything it would have been a complete media circus.

Kate McCann: We also asked about the possibility of actors being used, which is obviously what we do in our reconstructions. I mean, certainly in the UK we have a programme called Crimewatch, which uses actors and I think [unclear]. Errm... it's probably detrimental to ask people who have been through something traumatic to live it again.

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

what planet is this woman on. I'm sure police investigations the length and breadth of the land give Equity a quick call to recruit some actors and give the bbc a call every time they want to do a reconstruction.

Also it probably can be detrimental to some people to have to reconstruct - particularly if it means it disproves your story...very detrimental..

by **tigger** 16.01.12 17:52

Quite so Stewie, they do use actors, but generally only for the person who's died or disappeared. In order to be useful, you damn well have to have all the original 'players' going through the actions they said they were going through. What on earth can you learn from it otherwise?
Crimewatch may from time to time, re-enact crimes, but that's for the viewers, it isn't a reconstruction of the crime because none of the witnesses are present.
So the only stand-in for the reconstruction in PdL would have had to be a toddler of about the right size and weight.

Mind you, I'd love to have seen a reconstruction with the Tapas, it would have been like a Keystone Cops routine. All over the place.

or Benny Hill, I can hear the music even now!

by Miraflores 16.01.12 19:48

And far from using actors - don't the police use other police officers of similar build and height to the victim?

by **tigger** 16.01.12 20:07

Miraflores wrote:And far from using actors - don't the police use other police officers of similar build and height to the victim?

Of course, that what I should have said. They also select one of similar height and build of the victim.

by russiandoll 18.01.12 18:39

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very
striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call
her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very
unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair
err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very
bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact
with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine
err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride
and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and
everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously
very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect
err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she
was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on
the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily
and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is
a very beautiful child and good fun.

imo the reply should have read something along the following lines for it not to have raised a gigantic red flag: the errs and you knows alone are remarkable for their number even allowing for the stress of the situation. A person might not be present, around, might not have been for some time...but not to use the present tense in these circumstances is bizarre in the extreme. If you are speaking about a relation who lives on the other side of the world whom you have not seen for 20 years.....you discuss him in the present tense, only using the past tense if referring to his/ her past.

Dr
David Payne reply: Madeleine’s a striking child, unique looking due to
her iris defect, blonde hair in a bob, quite petite. She
is very bright, Kate and Gerry’s pride and joy, a happy go lucky child, she plays very happily with Lily and the other children.

note the rapid switch from 1 verb in the present to the majority in
the past tense then a sudden reversion back to the present to end his
reply. [highlighted].
Could someone kindly refresh my memory as to
how long after the disappearance this reply came? Payne at this stage
seems to have little doubt she existed in the past and is no longer with
us.

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err
beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her
doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique
looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a
bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly,
very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She
was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you
know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy.
They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything
and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique
with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you
know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she
would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the
other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and
you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a
very beautiful child and good fun.”