The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Why didn't you come last night...?

Page 5 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by lj on 10.03.12 15:56

Sorry for the formatting errors in above post.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3321
Reputation : 195
Join date : 2009-12-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 10.03.12 17:26

lj wrote:
I needed some time to find the post back of Merrimo
Ah, we're a bit at cross purposes, I meant welcome back to the forum as I've missed you for a few months Wink
lj wrote:until I realized it was attached to the worthless study. It shows how deceptive this team works. The deceptiveness is so strong that it only can be because profound stupidity or extreme lying.

What does our keyboard monkey post:
quote
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballeshttp://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_923 that an alert from a police dog during a traffic stop provides a constitutional basis for law enforcement to search the interior of the vehicle.
unquote.


Now read a summary of the case:

[size=25]
ILLINOIS v. CABALLES
[/size]
Case Basics
Docket No. 03-923
Petitioner Illinois
Respondent Roy I. Caballes
Decided By Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)/courts/rehnquist/rehn6
Opinion 543 U.S. 405 (2005)http://www.justia.us/us/543/405/case.html
Granted
Monday, April 5, 2004
/case_calendar/2004-04-05
Argued
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
/case_calendar/2004-11-10
Decided
Monday, January 24, 2005
/case_calendar/2005-01-24 Advocates
Ralph E. Meczyk
/advocates/m/r/ralph_e_meczyk
(argued the cause for Respondent)
Lisa Madigan
/advocates/m/l/lisa_madigan
(argued the cause for Petitioner)
Christopher A. Wray
/advocates/w/c/christopher_a_wray
(argued the cause for Petitioner, on behalf of the the United States, as amicus curiae)
Term:


2000-2009


2004
/cases/2004
Facts of the Case
During a routine traffic stop, a drug-detection dog alerted police to marijuana in Roy Caballes' car trunk. An Illinois court convicted Caballes of cannabis trafficking. Caballes appealed and argued the search violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and ruled police performed the canine sniff without specific and articulable facts to support its use, "unjustifiably enlarging the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation."
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure clause require a reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a canine sniff during a routine traffic stop?

Conclusion
Decision:
6 votes for Illinois, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the Court's 7-2 opinion that Caballes' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Constitution did not require police to have reasonable suspicion to use a drug-detection dog on a car during a legal traffic stop. No legitimate privacy was at risk, the Court argued, because the dog only alerted to an illegal drug.

So first of all it was not the US supreme court, but the Illinois supreme court that overturned the conviction, not because the dogs are unreliable, but because their so much more refined sense would constitute "unreasonable" search. Then the US Supreme Court overturned the Illinois SC's decision.The US Supreme Court argued that no legitimate privacy was at risk, because the dog only alerted to an illegal drug.
I can assure you that everywhere in the US sniffer dogs are being used, traffic stops, border crossing, accidents, you name it.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
[/size][/size]
You are absolutely correct, these Pro's are so deceptive and twist things to fit, if it doesn't flatter King + Queen McCann it is thrown out!
Always the same tired old arguments too. Like 'Eddie alerted to and found a coconut! Ha ha ha ha and they say the dogs are reliable, ha ha ha ha ha' Well, for one Eddie did NOT alert to or find coconut, he alerted to cadaver odour and a HUMAN excavated the coconut 'believing' it to be bone... So who messed up there? Not Eddie, that is for sure.
I am also really fed up of hearing the horrible stuff about Goncalo. As if it makes a shred of difference if he's been married twice??? HE did not leave Maddie alone .ind, I don't think the McC's did either), GA didn't hurt or mistreat her either. He just drew the short straw and got the case! Considering 99 out of 100 reported under 7's 'abducted from home' are killed by a family member, he wouldve been BADLY negligent not to look at Kate and Gerry wouldn't he? Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
Still, the Pro 'disciples' are only following their hero's lead - ie the archiving despatch that 'cleared them' (which it didn't as only a court of law could do that had they been charged!)
The lies and deceptions started on, or probably before, May 3rd 2007 and they still show no signs of stopping willingly!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by lj on 10.03.12 21:43

Thank you rainbow-fairy. Yes we have been in quite some trouble here, still are, but it looks like posting is less dangerous than it was a couple of months ago.

Yeah, the depths these people go to, or whatever the expression is. I can't wait for this whole bunch to be exposed.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3321
Reputation : 195
Join date : 2009-12-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Me on 11.03.12 7:02

Let's also look at this study:

Originally written on 7th June 2008

Article by Dr Rosemary Claire Taylor MA MB BChir (Cantab)

Olfaction, the act or process of smelling, is the primary special sense possessed by dogs. A dog’s sense of smell is a thousand times more sensitive than humans. Dogs have more than 220 million olfactory receptors in their nose, whereas humans only have 5 million. Specially trained dogs have been used to locate forensic cadaver material and disaster survivors. Highly trained dogs assisted the emergency services in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001.

Cadaver dogs need to undergo rigorous training. Prior to beginning a specialised training programme, these dogs need to have basic obedience skills. The cue a dog uses to indicate forensic material depends on the trainer. Some dogs are trained to bark to indicate cadavers, whereas others scratch at the area in the crime scene. Dogs are given a verbal cue to start searching, and directional cues such as “check it out” to indicate an area requiring a more detailed search.

A variety of breeds can be trained to hunt forensic material. Bloodhounds, springer spaniels and labradors are commonly used. Trained cadaver dogs have the ability to detect decomposing bodies beneath running water, for example when a corpse is weighted down, and placed at the bottom of a river.

I have done a thorough search of academic journals on this subject, and will present my findings as follows:

1. Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.

Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

Reference:
Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.

Notes on the scientific terminology in this study;

Sensitivity means the number of correct detections out of 100. Here, all dogs managed to correctly identify 75-100 carpet squares out of 100. This is a good success rate.

Specificity describes the number of false identifications. A sensitivity of 91 out of 100 means, at most, there are 9 false positives in a sample of 100 uncontaminated squares. This is a good specificity, much higher than cervical screening, which can detect far more false positives.

The Positive Predictive Value can be defined as;

In other words, out of 100, there are 75-100 true positives, and 0-9 false positives. A positive predictive value describes the percentage chance, if a sample is contaminated, that the dog will discover it. The value of 90-100 means that, out of 100 contaminated squares, at least 90 are correctly identified by the dog.

The Negative Predictive Value can be defined as;

In other words, out of 100, there are 0-9 false positives and 0-25 false negatives. A negative predictive value describes the chance that, if a sample is not contaminated, the dog will correctly identify the sample as clear of human remains. The study quotes a negative predictive value of 90-100. This means only 0-10 ‘clean’ squares are wrongly identified as contaminated by the dogs.

Accuracy is the degree to which the evidence presented by the dogs matches known information about which squares were marked. The accuracy of dog detection is presented as 92-100. This means that dogs correctly identify carpet squares as ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ in at least 92 cases out of 100. This is an impressive accuracy score.

In addition, I think it is important to consider that this is an experiment, not real life. In reality cadaver dogs are given more time to assess possible traces of human remains. Hence in a true police setting, cadaver dogs are more likely to give accurate information.

2. Specially trained air scent detection canines (Canis familiaris) are commonly used by law enforcement to detect narcotics, explosives or contraband, and by fire investigators to detect the presence of accelerants. Dogs are also used by police, military, and civilian groups to locate lost or missing persons, as well as victims of natural or mass disasters. A further subspecialty is “cadaver” searching, or the use of canines to locate buried or concealed human remains.

Recent forensic investigations in central Alberta demonstrated that the use of cadaver dogs could be expanded to include locating partial, scattered human remains dispersed by repeated animal scavenging. Eight dog-and-handler teams participated in a two-month training program using human and animal remains in various stages of decay as scent sources. Ten blind field tests were then conducted which simulated actual search conditions. Recovery rates ranged between 57% and 100%, indicating that properly trained cadaver dogs can make significant contributions in the location and recovery of scattered human remains.

Reference:
J Forensic Sci. 1999 Mar;44(2):405-8.
The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: preliminary field test results. Komar D.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

This study was written in 1999. Nonetheless, in situations where there are scattered human remains, dogs identify them in 57-100% of cases.

3. The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains.

Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonised. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains.

The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonised remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonised remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.

Reference:
J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):617-21.
Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States.Lasseter AE, Jacobi KP, Farley R, Hensel L.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0210, USA.

This is an impressive study. The salient points are that cadaver dogs can identify a corpse, or a piece of a corpse, which had been buried at a significant depth. This gives the dog handlers an opportunity to investigate a more ‘real life’ crime scene. Following a murder, it is normal for a criminal to hide any human remains, often by burying the corpse. It appears that these dogs can still detect the ‘smell of death’, when a body part is buried deep in a forest.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by lj on 11.03.12 13:54

Indeed me, the ability of dogs is so much bigger than our ability to back them up. The funny part (if it was not so malicious) the courtcase merriwhatever wrongly cites is not about the dogs being not good enough, it is about them being too good.

What worries me, I know I should not be surprised after all these years, is the combination of extreme maliciousness with stupity. Did she really think nobody would check? It has all the characteristics of Kate, who in her narcissistic, sociopathic delusion, contradicts herself (yes that's an euphemism for lies) in her book and thinks people will believe her because she says it. Indeed one has to worry about children in her care.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3321
Reputation : 195
Join date : 2009-12-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 11.03.12 14:31

lj, you are spot on!
I think the word is 'arrogance'. They do fully expect us not to check. A bit of waffle, a bit of bluster and they believe they've discredited an argument! Ha! Not likely. I'm still waiting for Merrymo to provide the link to Pat Brown's 'disbelief'.
I think the best I read from her in reply to me was this;
She said she doesn't believe Kate and Gerry could 'pull off' committing 'horrendous acts'. She believes 'one person maybe, but not two' - SO
For 1)Presumably she has never heard of Fred and Rose West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley (plus many other couples besides)
For 2)She has totally contradicted herself - again - as in the VERY sentence before she stated her belief that ' a professional gang targeted 5a until a suitable family came along' - stop laughing at the back! - but THEN states 'one person could pull it off, bit not two'. Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but by definition isn't a 'gang' 'more than two?'. And there goes her argument, neatly shot out the water by HERSELF Wink

Btw, really glad posting is not as dangerous for you now. Have certainly missed your insights, and I'll be crossing my fingers that things continue to get better for you out there :)

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Merrymo on 20.03.12 18:40

rainbow-fairy wrote:lj, you are spot on!
I think the word is 'arrogance'. They do fully expect us not to check. A bit of waffle, a bit of bluster and they believe they've discredited an argument! Ha! Not likely. I'm still waiting for Merrymo to provide the link to Pat Brown's 'disbelief'.

I think the best I read from her in reply to me was this;
She said she doesn't believe Kate and Gerry could 'pull off' committing 'horrendous acts'. She believes 'one person maybe, but not two' - SO
For 1)Presumably she has never heard of Fred and Rose West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley (plus many other couples besides)
For 2)She has totally contradicted herself - again - as in the VERY sentence before she stated her belief that ' a professional gang targeted 5a until a suitable family came along' - stop laughing at the back! - but THEN states 'one person could pull it off, bit not two'. Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but by definition isn't a 'gang' 'more than two?'. And there goes her argument, neatly shot out the water by HERSELF Wink

Btw, really glad posting is not as dangerous for you now. Have certainly missed your insights, and I'll be crossing my fingers that things continue to get better for you out there :)



QUOTE (as you requested) ................................ From Pat Brown


Disclaimers


The ebook starts with a 400 plus word Disclaimer which includes the statement:-

Quote: from PB

“It is also important to note that determinations made in this profile do not assign guilt or innocence to any party nor are these determinations to be misinterpreted as ‘facts’ as opposed to opinions.”


More disclaimers are then given in Part One: Introduction: Basic Rules for Profiling Crimes and People when Pat Brown admits:-

Quote: from PB



  • That a “proper interpretation” would require an in-depth analysis of behaviour and personality traits over time
  • That she doesn’t have access to all the records
  • That she didn’t have a long time to review information and evidence
  • That she didn’t conduct any interviews and then further investigate all of the facts


In Part Six: Development of a Theory, Brown reminds the reader that her theory :-

Quote: From PB

“...is only one imagined scenario…”




Pat Brown's Theory




A Precis


That Gerry McCann found Madeleine dead behind the sofa when he returned to check the children at 9.05pm and that twenty minutes later, with the help of Matt Oldfield and possibly also Russell O’Brien, he conspired to get rid of her body and make it look like she had been abducted. When an unsuspecting Kate McCann raised the alarm that Madeleine was missing at 10pm, Brown believes that Gerry McCann rejoined the group at the apartment and told his wife and friends what really happened. She suggests that they quickly agreed to go along with the plan because they feared getting into trouble for leaving their children unattended whilst they ate at the nearby restaurant.




Time of "Death" (Important)


Pat Brown admits that the McCanns could not have gone out to dinner and acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly. As there are witnesses who describe them as having been in high spirits and acting normally all evening, this narrows Pat Brown's "accidental death" scenario down to a very small window of time. Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as acting "normal" when they chatted outside the restaurant arond 9.15pm. A waiter described the group as being in high spirits all evening. No witness reported any odd behaviour at all.



Quote: from PB

Due to the very real emotions exhibited around and after 10 pm, I do not believe the McCanns could have had something happen to Madeleine before they left for the restaurant, done something with her body, and then gone out for the evening, pretending all was well, and at 10 pm have Kate feign shock at finding Madeleine gone. To recap, I believe the evidence, especially the behavioral evidence, points to Madeline going missing on the evening of May 3rd and during the time the McCanns and their friends were dining at the Tapas restaurant. END QUOTE
--------------------------------

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by russiandoll on 20.03.12 22:20

quote from Merrymo's post, from Pat Brown...

Pat Brown admits that the McCanns could not have gone out to dinner and acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly. As there are witnesses who describe them as having been in high spirits and acting normally all evening, this narrows Pat Brown's "accidental death" scenario down to a very small window of time. Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as acting "normal" when they chatted outside the restaurant arond 9.15pm. A waiter described the group as being in high spirits all evening. No witness reported any odd behaviour at all.


I have a problem with the above. Whilst not being in high spirits when he met Jez W at 9.15, he had left the apartment after finding his daughter dead and yet ACTING NORMAL according to JW during their chat....only 10 minutes later.
What was he doing after that time, until 10.pm? Part of a group in HIGH SPIRITS ALL EVENING......i.e. until 10 pm, and unless he was absent from the high-spirited table, Gerry is included in this observation. So none of the above makes sense.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by aquila on 20.03.12 22:31

russiandoll wrote: quote from Merrymo's post, from Pat Brown...

Pat Brown admits that the McCanns could not have gone out to dinner and acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly. As there are witnesses who describe them as having been in high spirits and acting normally all evening, this narrows Pat Brown's "accidental death" scenario down to a very small window of time. Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as acting "normal" when they chatted outside the restaurant arond 9.15pm. A waiter described the group as being in high spirits all evening. No witness reported any odd behaviour at all.


I have a problem with the above. Whilst not being in high spirits when he met Jez W at 9.15, he had left the apartment after finding his daughter dead and yet ACTING NORMAL according to JW during their chat....only 10 minutes later.
What was he doing after that time, until 10.pm? Part of a group in HIGH SPIRITS ALL EVENING......i.e. until 10 pm, and unless he was absent from the high-spirited table, Gerry is included in this observation. So none of the above makes sense.

It's amazing what a person can do to protect their ego or reputation and I'm speaking of all of the T9.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8515
Reputation : 1603
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Ribisl on 20.03.12 22:54

aquila wrote:
russiandoll wrote: quote from Merrymo's post, from Pat Brown...

Pat Brown admits that the McCanns could not have gone out to dinner and acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly. As there are witnesses who describe them as having been in high spirits and acting normally all evening, this narrows Pat Brown's "accidental death" scenario down to a very small window of time. Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as acting "normal" when they chatted outside the restaurant arond 9.15pm. A waiter described the group as being in high spirits all evening. No witness reported any odd behaviour at all.


I have a problem with the above. Whilst not being in high spirits when he met Jez W at 9.15, he had left the apartment after finding his daughter dead and yet ACTING NORMAL according to JW during their chat....only 10 minutes later.
What was he doing after that time, until 10.pm? Part of a group in HIGH SPIRITS ALL EVENING......i.e. until 10 pm, and unless he was absent from the high-spirited table, Gerry is included in this observation. So none of the above makes sense.

It's amazing what a person can do to protect their ego or reputation and I'm speaking of all of the T9.

Some people can get themselves into an emotionally detached state to be able to function cerebrally. Maybe Gerry being a surgeon is quite adept at turning his emotions off especially when his survival instinct kicks in. As for the T9, if they had been let in on the secret during the supper, they could have been carried away by some kind of mass hysteria masquerading as a group in high spirits? Or just plain acting...??

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by aquila on 20.03.12 23:04

Ribisl wrote:
aquila wrote:
russiandoll wrote: quote from Merrymo's post, from Pat Brown...

Pat Brown admits that the McCanns could not have gone out to dinner and acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly. As there are witnesses who describe them as having been in high spirits and acting normally all evening, this narrows Pat Brown's "accidental death" scenario down to a very small window of time. Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as acting "normal" when they chatted outside the restaurant arond 9.15pm. A waiter described the group as being in high spirits all evening. No witness reported any odd behaviour at all.


I have a problem with the above. Whilst not being in high spirits when he met Jez W at 9.15, he had left the apartment after finding his daughter dead and yet ACTING NORMAL according to JW during their chat....only 10 minutes later.
What was he doing after that time, until 10.pm? Part of a group in HIGH SPIRITS ALL EVENING......i.e. until 10 pm, and unless he was absent from the high-spirited table, Gerry is included in this observation. So none of the above makes sense.

It's amazing what a person can do to protect their ego or reputation and I'm speaking of all of the T9.

Some people can get themselves into an emotionally detached state to be able to function cerebrally. Maybe Gerry being a surgeon is quite adept at turning his emotions off especially when his survival instinct kicks in. As for the T9, if they had been let in on the secret during the supper, they could have been carried away by some kind of mass hysteria masquerading as a group in high spirits? Or just plain acting...??

Is GM a surgeon? when did that happen?
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8515
Reputation : 1603
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Guest on 20.03.12 23:06

Yes I wondered about that. I'm sure he's a consultant and not a surgeon.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by russiandoll on 20.03.12 23:28

Gerry is a consultant physician, not a surgical consultant.
Re my post, I am sure there are some people who can act normally under maximum stress, not sure of the McCanns are in this category.
My post was to highlight what I saw as a contradction from PB. She is discounting a death earlier in the evening based on the high spirits and normal behaviour over the hours during dinner. I understand this view that getting ready to go out as normal, then spending a couple of hours or more laughing and chatting[ as witnessed] would have been impossible in her view.
However, following her logic, I would not expect a man 10 minutes after the shock of finding his child dead, to be acting normal with JW, nor with his dining companions as he did when he returned, if he was included in the witness statement re a lively group.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Merrymo on 20.03.12 23:45

russiandoll wrote: quote from Merrymo's post, from Pat Brown...

Pat Brown admits that the McCanns could not have gone out to dinner and acted normally if their young daughter had just died suddenly. As there are witnesses who describe them as having been in high spirits and acting normally all evening, this narrows Pat Brown's "accidental death" scenario down to a very small window of time. Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as acting "normal" when they chatted outside the restaurant arond 9.15pm. A waiter described the group as being in high spirits all evening. No witness reported any odd behaviour at all.
------------------

I have a problem with the above. Whilst not being in high spirits when he met Jez W at 9.15, he had left the apartment after finding his daughter dead and yet ACTING NORMAL according to JW during their chat....only 10 minutes later.
What was he doing after that time, until 10.pm? Part of a group in HIGH SPIRITS ALL EVENING......i.e. until 10 pm, and unless he was absent from the high-spirited table, Gerry is included in this observation. So none of the above makes sense.



I'm afraid you've lost me Russiandoll, ''the above'' which you say you have a problem with is not a quote from PB it's a comment on PBs belief that the McCanns 'could not have behaved normally etc etc ' - and gives the reasons (i.e. the evidence from witness statements) why she may have come to that conclusion. (Well that's how I read it anyway).

The following is the actual quote which Rainbow requested from me following my own comment that I did not believe the McCanns could have killed their daughter and then gone out and behaved normally - where I also included the comment that ... 'Even Pat Brown doesn't believe that' - ........and which Rainbow then queried and asked for verification.



Quote: from Pat Brown

Due to the very real emotions exhibited around and after 10 pm, I do not believe the McCanns could have had something happen to Madeleine before they left for the restaurant, done something with her body, and then gone out for the evening, pretending all was well, and at 10 pm have Kate feign shock at finding Madeleine gone. To recap, I believe the evidence, especially the behavioral evidence, points to Madeline going missing on the evening of May 3rd and during the time the McCanns and their friends were dining at the Tapas restaurant.

END QUOTE

I believe it is also Pat Browns contention that the reason the McCann's friends would agree to lie - was because they were afraid of getting into trouble for leaving their children.

As they made no attempt to hide that fact right from the start, then that theory does not seem to hold much water IMO.

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 21.03.12 8:17

Just to be clear, rainbow-fairy reaquested a link. She's still waiting.....

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Merrymo on 21.03.12 9:16

rainbow-fairy wrote:Just to be clear, rainbow-fairy reaquested a link. She's still waiting.....




Ahh Rainbow, then that presents a problem as I have no idea how to post links. However, you did ask for proof and I have given it to you to the best of my ability by c&p. I'm not in the habit of making stuff up - as that would be ludicrous - so the link would only show what I have quoted anyway. If you don't believe it to be a quote from PB, then surely it is up to you to back that up with some evidence. Saying that you haven't read it yourself is not evidence that PB didn't say it.

If you do a 'search' on parts of the quote I gave, then won't that take you to the original at some stage?

I'm assuming the comments referred to PBs book which was withdrawn from Amazon. If I can find out where I can order the book elsewhere I shall do that - so will be able to clarify that point.

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by aquila on 21.03.12 9:32

Merrymo wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Just to be clear, rainbow-fairy reaquested a link. She's still waiting.....




Ahh Rainbow, then that presents a problem as I have no idea how to post links. However, you did ask for proof and I have given it to you to the best of my ability by c&p. I'm not in the habit of making stuff up - as that would be ludicrous - so the link would only show what I have quoted anyway. If you don't believe it to be a quote from PB, then surely it is up to you to back that up with some evidence. Saying that you haven't read it yourself is not evidence that PB didn't say it.

If you do a 'search' on parts of the quote I gave, then won't that take you to the original at some stage?

I'm assuming the comments referred to PBs book which was withdrawn from Amazon. If I can find out where I can order the book elsewhere I shall do that - so will be able to clarify that point.

Merrymo, please just post the link. If you have no clue how to cut and paste, write it down and type it in. If we are to do a search on parts of the quote to take us to the original at some stage then you can do the same and save us the bother.

ETA. There is also a technical section on this forum that can help you.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8515
Reputation : 1603
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Lady-Heather on 21.03.12 9:36

If it helps, I have checked my Kindle version of Pat's book 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' and I can verify that the above is indeed quoted verbatim from 'Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing'.
avatar
Lady-Heather

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by russiandoll on 21.03.12 9:57

tired, sorry if I caused confusion by my misunderstanding a post.
I do not believe the McCanns could have killed their child accidentally or otherwise and then acted normally at a group meal.
I do not beleive the McCanns killed their daughter either by accident or design as I have not seen any evidence to suggest they did.
Whether a PB statement or a comment supporting it......I don't agree with it.
to clarify...at base it is a matter only of degree [of normal behaviour...]
I understand whoever made the comment, PB or a poster here, about the impobability of a couple who had lost a child to spend hours from then onwards behaving normally, being lively. The point was to discount the theory of a death early evening 3rd May? Normal behaviour from tea time onwards? How witnessed..the couple did not meet anyone until they went to the tapas bar did they? Who would have witnessed their behaviour inside 5a before the meal?
Death in a smaller window.......after leaving for tapas and before Gerrys check at 9.05....
to act normally even for 45 minutes after the discovery of your dead child.........is improbable. I understood from the post that JW described GMc as behaving normally, just 10 minutes after finding his child dead... and unless he did not return to the table, GMc acted normally until 10pm.

Will bow out of this discussion now, as it will become more entangled. I simply think the argument for death discovered at 9.05 on Gerry's check, all having been well when they left for the meal, is not convincing.

will re read a lot of the recent posts......I have clearly misunderstood something !

I think Maddie met her end at the latest the day before.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Guest on 21.03.12 9:59

Lady-Heather wrote:If it helps, I have checked my Kindle version of Pat's book 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' and I can verify that the above is indeed quoted verbatim from 'Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing'.

I was just doing the same and indeed the quote is from that chapter. However, to use that quote out of context is quite selective as it is part of Pat building a theory chapter by chapter. She does believe that the emotions displayed by the Mccanns were real and showed they were in anguish... however she also states in that chapter , and I quote "the reasons for Kate and Gerry acting in such a fashion (kneeling on the floor praying and crying) can be debated (and I will discuss my views on this later in the profile).

So she is building a theory and at this point, chapter 3, she concludes the chapter by saying "Determinations thus far: 1. Madeleine went missing on 3 may 2007. 2. Madeleine went missing between 8.30 and 10pm that evening 3. the emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.


Subsequent chapters build up her theory.. so more useful to quote from her final profile determinations in chapter 10, where she has considered all elements and developed her final profile..

She repeats points 1 and 2 above.. but for point 3. she adds that the emotions were real, but they were the emotions of a scared person - two devastated parents who knew their child was not coming home. WE also saw emotions of defeat and odd kneeling and prostrating behaviour which are more signs of guild and seeking of forgiveness than any kind of hopeful outreach.
4. late person to claim to see MAdeleine alive between 8.30 and 10pm is gerry Mccann and it is likely that Gerry was the one that found and moved Madeleine's body to the beach
5. It is highly likely the group of friends (or most of them) knew that Madeleine had died in the apartment and helped Garry and Kate cover the crime by creating a timeline giving Gerry an alibi...etc

So her conclusions, after she has built up her profile, are very different picture from concluding that she believe they could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance..

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by aiyoyo on 21.03.12 10:05

Merrymo wrote
following my own comment that I did not believe the McCanns could have killed their daughter and then gone out and behaved normally -

Well. I beg to differ. We are not talking normal people here. We are talking extraordinary deceitful people who are narcissistic so I believe the mccanns can pretend nothing happens and put on an act for the world stage.
I believe them capable of acting normal and happy and in high spirits even after they had handled their "not alive" daughter and disposed of her.
Just look at photo of them laughing like larks 9 days later on Maddie's 4th b/day -is that normal? When according to them Maddie is supposed to have been taken by paedophile with kate visualizing what was been done to her 'perfect private parts"

Just look at the mccanns now - they continue to act and behave as if nothing has happened to her, that they are continuing to search for her even though they knew very well what they had done to her? Is that normal behaviour of parents who knew their child is "not alive"?

Ok, even if we grant them their abduction theory - is it normal behavior of parents with a missing child who can go jogging, market products, write a bewk about her ordeal (kate's ordeal and not Madeleine) hire PR and lawyers to spin and sue, and not got off their arse to search for her?


avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by russiandoll on 21.03.12 10:11

can anyone tell me how to get Pat's book? Have only read posted excerpts and you are right, to take a quote out of context is wrong and misleading.

Cant get it on my Amazon Kindle....how have you Kindle readers obtained it?

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Guest on 21.03.12 10:23

russiandoll wrote: can anyone tell me how to get Pat's book? Have only read posted excerpts and you are right, to take a quote out of context is wrong and misleading.

Cant get it on my Amazon Kindle....how have you Kindle readers obtained it?

According to Pat's blog here.......

(now available at Smashwords and Barnes & Noble online).

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/press-release-cease-and-desist-letter.html
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by Lady-Heather on 21.03.12 10:28

russiandoll wrote: can anyone tell me how to get Pat's book? Have only read posted excerpts and you are right, to take a quote out of context is wrong and misleading.

Cant get it on my Amazon Kindle....how have you Kindle readers obtained it?

russiandoll I bought mine from Amazon before it was pulled. You can still buy it in various formats from Smashwords: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/76820
avatar
Lady-Heather

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Why didn't you come last night...?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 21.03.12 10:33

Stewie wrote:
Lady-Heather wrote:If it helps, I have checked my Kindle version of Pat's book 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' and I can verify that the above is indeed quoted verbatim from 'Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing'.

I was just doing the same and indeed the quote is from that chapter. However, to use that quote out of context is quite selective as it is part of Pat building a theory chapter by chapter. She does believe that the emotions displayed by the Mccanns were real and showed they were in anguish... however she also states in that chapter , and I quote "the reasons for Kate and Gerry acting in such a fashion (kneeling on the floor praying and crying) can be debated (and I will discuss my views on this later in the profile).

So she is building a theory and at this point, chapter 3, she concludes the chapter by saying "Determinations thus far: 1. Madeleine went missing on 3 may 2007. 2. Madeleine went missing between 8.30 and 10pm that evening 3. the emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.


Subsequent chapters build up her theory.. so more useful to quote from her final profile determinations in chapter 10, where she has considered all elements and developed her final profile..

She repeats points 1 and 2 above.. but for point 3. she adds that the emotions were real, but they were the emotions of a scared person - two devastated parents who knew their child was not coming home. WE also saw emotions of defeat and odd kneeling and prostrating behaviour which are more signs of guild and seeking of forgiveness than any kind of hopeful outreach.
4. late person to claim to see MAdeleine alive between 8.30 and 10pm is gerry Mccann and it is likely that Gerry was the one that found and moved Madeleine's body to the beach
5. It is highly likely the group of friends (or most of them) knew that Madeleine had died in the apartment and helped Garry and Kate cover the crime by creating a timeline giving Gerry an alibi...etc

So her conclusions, after she has built up her profile, are very different picture from concluding that she believe they could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance..

Thank you Stewie - point proven and that is exactly why I asked for the link, as I was aware that Merrymo was 'cherry-picking'. Why do they do that??? Not only that, it was very hard to work out which were Pat Browns thoughts and which were Merrymo's anecdotes.
One paragraph does not a book or a conclusion make (unless it backs up an impossible theory, eh? Wink)

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum