The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
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 when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by aiyoyo on 17.04.12 16:09


Except here we are not taking about scientific concept where a set of facts can be changed if it does not fit the theory.

It's not about experimenting with theories to come up with a scientific discovery.

The mccanns did not counter for the dogs.

And, if they make the mistake of thinking facts are changeable to fit a theory then they might be in for another SURPRISE as facts surrounding the science of crime solving is somewhat limited, starting from elimination.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Kololi on 17.04.12 16:11

Jean wrote,

"Kololi states she is female but that's the thing with people you know only through the Internet - who knows if the information given out is correct; not that there's a problem with adopting a new identity unless there's an intention to deceive."

Not sure I did state I was female before this point but hey maybe I did or maybe I didn't.

Jean states that Kololi states that she is female and then babbles on about decpetion.
I think I took it how you meant it Jean and having Rainbowfairy back you up is like having one pygmy telling another that short is beautiful.
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Kololi on 17.04.12 16:17

@aiyoyo wrote:
Except here we are not taking about scientific concept where a set of facts can be changed if it does not fit the theory.

It's not about experimenting with theories to come up with a scientific discovery.

The mccanns did not counter for the dogs.

And, if they make the mistake of thinking facts are changeable to fit a theory then they might be in for another SURPRISE as facts surrounding the science of crime solving is somewhat limited, starting from elimination.

I never said that we were talking about scientific concepts Aiyoyo and I do hope that you intend to chastise everyone on this board that does what you have stated should not be done in your second sentence. Afterall it surely isn't about experimenting with theories to come up with a guilty verdict. I always understood guilt was proven because of evidence that was shown to be true. We don't have that evidence - we only have our thoughts and beliefs and a little bit of information that has been provided and sits in the public domain.

Our sneaking suspicions are just that - sneaking suspicions and if you stopped hitting me with the big bat at every turn you may read long enough to understand that maybe my sneaking suspicions are not so very far removed from your own. ooops

avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by nomendelta on 17.04.12 16:27

Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

nomendelta

Posts : 330
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2011-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by russiandoll on 17.04.12 16:40

could not agree more nomendelta, very well said.

____________________



             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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Kololi on 17.04.12 16:47

@nomendelta wrote:Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

Nomendelta, whilst I don't agree totally with your post, I do agree in part.

I struggle however, when at times, maybe because there is no new news, some people choose to rehas stuff or go off on a tangent trying to find that all important fact that might prove that Madeleine has come to harm and that her parents are in some way knowledgeable about her fate. I know the argument likely to be put to me for this - that "we" are here with the child's best interests in mind trying to uncover the truth. I believe that some people actually believe themselves when they type that. I have never claimed that actually. I am here simply becaue I have an interest in the case and whilst I have my own thoughts on what may or may not have happened and people like Candyfloss do keep this site very much up to date so that I can read pretty much all that gets printed about it in one place. And also because, on the whole, the people are pleasant enough here.

I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.

I have my thoughts and as said to Aiyoyo, some of my thoughts may be very much viewed by some as "anti" if I were to post them in the way that some post here. My heart says to me that I should at least try and be kind when airing my views and I should always be ready to eat humble pie should my thoughts or suspicions be proven wrong. I am probably no different than a great many people posting here except I just haven't been convinced either way as to what actually happened to Madeleine McCann that night based upon the information we have access to or their behaviour since.

Jumping off my soapbox now - hope I didn't bore or offend to much.
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by tigger on 17.04.12 17:13

Kololi wrote:
I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.
unquote

As to your first sentence here, I feel partly responsible. However consider this:
Maddie's health records were refused ( they would have remained confidential so that is no argument- it's also standard procedure)
The photographs supplied by the parents are varied and show what most mothers would consider to be a child that doesn't look entirely healthy.
Kate has told us in the bewk that Maddie was difficult, cried a lot and they didn't know what was wrong with her.
The McCann family have given us indications that Maddie was a difficult child.
Kate tells us in the bewk and the diary about Maddie's 'fear of pain' - that indicates some treatment - a child wouldn't have a fear of pain about falling of a bike for instance. It's a very curious remark and it is repeated three times in the diary.
Her official height is given as 90 cm. which is off the bottom end of the scale for her age.
On the evidence given by the parents the health of the child is in doubt.

Therefore it is not surprising that we look at the photographs - some of which are blatantly photoshopped - to see if there are indications what might have ailed her. Because it would help to explain her disappearance. Because it might help explain her parents' behaviour.

'especially if I was telling the truth'. Well, why not give her health records to the police? The coloboma affair already has proved they are not telling the truth.
People will speculate as to why not.

Just because they were not charged, does not mean they are telling the truth. Far from it. All it means is that the evidence isn't at present sufficient to secure a conviction in court. There is plenty of evidence with the police and in the public domain.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by rainbow-fairy on 17.04.12 17:20

@Kololi wrote:
@nomendelta wrote:Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

Nomendelta, whilst I don't agree totally with your post, I do agree in part.

I struggle however, when at times, maybe because there is no new news, some people choose to rehas stuff or go off on a tangent trying to find that all important fact that might prove that Madeleine has come to harm and that her parents are in some way knowledgeable about her fate. I know the argument likely to be put to me for this - that "we" are here with the child's best interests in mind trying to uncover the truth. I believe that some people actually believe themselves when they type that. I have never claimed that actually. I am here simply becaue I have an interest in the case and whilst I have my own thoughts on what may or may not have happened and people like Candyfloss do keep this site very much up to date so that I can read pretty much all that gets printed about it in one place. And also because, on the whole, the people are pleasant enough here.

I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.

I have my thoughts and as said to Aiyoyo, some of my thoughts may be very much viewed by some as "anti" if I were to post them in the way that some post here. My heart says to me that I should at least try and be kind when airing my views and I should always be ready to eat humble pie should my thoughts or suspicions be proven wrong. I am probably no different than a great many people posting here except I just haven't been convinced either way as to what actually happened to Madeleine McCann that night based upon the information we have access to or their behaviour since.

Jumping off my soapbox now - hope I didn't bore or offend to much.
Yes - you did - both.
The only people you seem to post fairly about are the McCanns. You cause mischief and bad feeling, then come over all 'hurt' and lash out. Your comments earlier about me backing Jean up were uncalled for, and your comment to me weeks ago is just horrible. IIRC, Kate McCann wrote about her daughters private bits (how degrading for a daughter she claims to be alive) and I was one of many posters to comment on it - many times. Yet I get accused of being some kind of deviant! You truly are a nasty piece of work Kololi, I can see right through your 'I'm being kind and fair' nonsense.

Why don't you TRY posting some of these 'anti' thoughts you have? I will be the first to roll over and piddle in submission if I'm ever proven wrong about the McCanns. But, by their lies, spin and dishonesty they cause a lot of the wilder theories.

Oh, and I AM a pygmy, and small IS beautiful...

____________________
"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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by nomendelta on 17.04.12 17:31

So it's OK for Kate and Gerry to rehash the same old BS time after time without being challenged and indeed daring to suggest nobody has the right to be challenged yet if anyone "rehashes" old news here it's a problem?

Respectfully, I am going to ignore Kololi from now on. It's like talking to a brick wall and I have the distinct impression she is deliberately derailing threads.

nomendelta

Posts : 330
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2011-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Kololi on 17.04.12 17:39

Tigger wrote,

"Just because they were not charged, does not mean they are telling the truth. Far from it. All it means is that the evidence isn't at present sufficient to secure a conviction in court. There is plenty of evidence with the police and in the public domain."

I couldn't agree more Tigger.

When I decided to get my grey matter moving again and studied law we learnt that the CPS makes a decision as to whether the hard work of the Police will see the inside of a courtroom or not. If they feel there isn't enough evidence to secure the conviction they may be reluctant to take it forward on the grounds of the money being spent not being in the public interest. Obviously things may work differently in Portugal - I honestly don't know.

It appears that the evidence was not sufficient enough so no charge was brought but, like you, I don't necessarily believe that this means that they were not telling the odd porkie or two. It's like the dogs signalling isn't it. It cannot be used alone and requires some further evidence to support it. That doesn't mean that the dogs were wrong however.

I know why you and others look at the photos and I believe that you and others believe that it may give a vital clue in determining what may have happened on that evening and why. I try and not comment on it and usually managed to stick to it but have lapsed on that stand lately possibly because I have considered that it seems that no holds are barred in comments made to me so hey let's give as good as I get. Best I go back to my ignoring the bits I don't like and hope that others do the same when reading something that they feel I may be totally off whack with.

The coloboma is a wtf moment. Initially used as a poster and then later played down. Very odd indeed. Your guess is as good as mine as to why their accounts changed.


avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by rainbow-fairy on 17.04.12 17:49

@tigger wrote:Kololi wrote:
I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.
unquote

As to your first sentence here, I feel partly responsible. However consider this:
Maddie's health records were refused ( they would have remained confidential so that is no argument- it's also standard procedure)
The photographs supplied by the parents are varied and show what most mothers would consider to be a child that doesn't look entirely healthy.
Kate has told us in the bewk that Maddie was difficult, cried a lot and they didn't know what was wrong with her.
The McCann family have given us indications that Maddie was a difficult child.
Kate tells us in the bewk and the diary about Maddie's 'fear of pain' - that indicates some treatment - a child wouldn't have a fear of pain about falling of a bike for instance. It's a very curious remark and it is repeated three times in the diary.
Her official height is given as 90 cm. which is off the bottom end of the scale for her age.
On the evidence given by the parents the health of the child is in doubt.

Therefore it is not surprising that we look at the photographs - some of which are blatantly photoshopped - to see if there are indications what might have ailed her. Because it would help to explain her disappearance. Because it might help explain her parents' behaviour.

'especially if I was telling the truth'. Well, why not give her health records to the police? The coloboma affair already has proved they are not telling the truth.
People will speculate as to why not.

Just because they were not charged, does not mean they are telling the truth. Far from it. All it means is that the evidence isn't at present sufficient to secure a conviction in court. There is plenty of evidence with the police and in the public domain.
Totally agreed tigger.
You've only to look up at the header to see they lied. Was Kate lying when she said 'it was barely a fleck' or was she lying when she held up the 'LOOK' logo poster?
Kololi, you do crack me up. 'Changed their accounts' - is that your kind McCann euphemism for 'lied their a**es off'?

____________________
"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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Spaniel on 17.04.12 18:26

@Kololi wrote:
@nomendelta wrote:Kololi,

Whilst you are correct in that it isn't up to us to assign guilt - or indeed non-guilt - as we don't have all the facts it is worth pointing out that if nothing else the evidence very clearly shows that the McCanns, their friends and the people the McCanns have paid to work for them via the fund have stood in the way of clear and accurate reporting of facts, have seriously muddied the water and harmed the search with many false claims of sightings and generally failed to leave "no stone unturned" as to this day they refuse to answer questions about the many discrepancies by labelling anyone who questions them as malicious ghouls. Those facts alone are enough for anyone to draw a negative conclusion and even if they are in no way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter (and for what it's worth I don't have a clue what happened to her and I am open to all theories but I would happily bet my last tenner that the McCanns at the very least know exactly what happened) the obstruction they have created is enough to cast doubt on their characters.

There is a "missing" child at the heart of all this yet these two have treated it like a game from the earliest days treating everyone who questions them with contempt.

Nomendelta, whilst I don't agree totally with your post, I do agree in part.

I struggle however, when at times, maybe because there is no new news, some people choose to rehas stuff or go off on a tangent trying to find that all important fact that might prove that Madeleine has come to harm and that her parents are in some way knowledgeable about her fate. I know the argument likely to be put to me for this - that "we" are here with the child's best interests in mind trying to uncover the truth. I believe that some people actually believe themselves when they type that. I have never claimed that actually. I am here simply becaue I have an interest in the case and whilst I have my own thoughts on what may or may not have happened and people like Candyfloss do keep this site very much up to date so that I can read pretty much all that gets printed about it in one place. And also because, on the whole, the people are pleasant enough here.

I also struggle when I see that people are ooogling photos of somebody's child in a way that makes me uncomfortable looking for bruises or signs of a special needs syndrome etc. I would be devastated if my child's photo was examined in such a way in public especially if I knew that I was telling the truth and currently, despite any of our suspicions, that is what we have to live with - that her parents were not charged and so are seen in the eyes of the law to be telling the truth.

I have my thoughts and as said to Aiyoyo, some of my thoughts may be very much viewed by some as "anti" if I were to post them in the way that some post here. My heart says to me that I should at least try and be kind when airing my views and I should always be ready to eat humble pie should my thoughts or suspicions be proven wrong. I am probably no different than a great many people posting here except I just haven't been convinced either way as to what actually happened to Madeleine McCann that night based upon the information we have access to or their behaviour since.

Jumping off my soapbox now - hope I didn't bore or offend to much.

If my child was genuinely missing, I wouldn't be reading theory forums such as this, nor would my advisors, top legal representatives, or my spokesperson.

Why would I need an advisor, top legal advice and ex gorvernment spokeperson?

____________________

avatar
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Ribisl on 17.04.12 18:32

RF you appear to have morphed overnight from adorable Remolacha into a high flying canine!

____________________
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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by rainbow-fairy on 17.04.12 19:43

@Ribisl wrote:RF you appear to have morphed overnight from adorable Remolacha into a high flying canine!
Don't worry my bark is worse than my bite LOL 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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Guest on 17.04.12 20:27

I was trying to find an avatar of some sort of dwarf in view of mine and Rainbow-Fairy's new identities (thanks to Kololi) of poison pygmies! This one was the best I could find.

I do agree with what was said earlier that some people go overboard with scrutinising photos for defects real or imagined but some images are clearly photo-shopped or not even of Madeleine and inevitably they will be the subject of debate.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by aiyoyo on 18.04.12 7:36

@Kololi wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Except here we are not taking about scientific concept where a set of facts can be changed if it does not fit the theory.

It's not about experimenting with theories to come up with a scientific discovery.

The mccanns did not counter for the dogs.

And, if they make the mistake of thinking facts are changeable to fit a theory then they might be in for another SURPRISE as facts surrounding the science of crime solving is somewhat limited, starting from elimination.

I never said that we were talking about scientific concepts Aiyoyo and I do hope that you intend to chastise everyone on this board that does what you have stated should not be done in your second sentence. Afterall it surely isn't about experimenting with theories to come up with a guilty verdict. I always understood guilt was proven because of evidence that was shown to be true. We don't have that evidence - we only have our thoughts and beliefs and a little bit of information that has been provided and sits in the public domain.

Our sneaking suspicions are just that - sneaking suspicions and if you stopped hitting me with the big bat at every turn you may read long enough to understand that maybe my sneaking suspicions are not so very far removed from your own. ooops


Oh dearie me, Kololi, chuk chuk..chuk.. menopausing are you? You must be getting too many hot flashes that you imagine things.

Where did you see that particular post of mine directed at you?.

My post was in response to PM's quoting of Albert Einstein, and your post happens to get sandwiched in between, so it must be a case of crossed timing.

FYI, when I said "it's not about experimenting with theories to come up with a scientific discovery" I was comparing Albert Einstein's science to science of crime investigation.
Changing facts to fit a theory may work in experimenting with theory to stumble upon a scientific discovery, hence Albert Einstein's famous quote.
Whereas you cant change the facts to fit the theory in a crime investigation, which btw is what the mccanns did - crime investigation does not work that way.

Try not to be so defensive or see things where non exists or you are batting yourself! Love you lots too



avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Kololi on 18.04.12 10:51

Jean wrote:I was trying to find an avatar of some sort of dwarf in view of mine and Rainbow-Fairy's new identities (thanks to Kololi) of poison pygmies! This one was the best I could find.

I do agree with what was said earlier that some people go overboard with scrutinising photos for defects real or imagined but some images are clearly photo-shopped or not even of Madeleine and inevitably they will be the subject of debate.


I am sure that you are both tall beautiful women or men. My pygmy reference merely meant birds of a feather. And both yours and RF's posts give you away as being intelligent enough to know that I not now calling you old crows.

Maybe I am not so convinced as perhaps you are then Jean of the amount of shananigans the McCanns may have been involved in.

The video that was the start of this topic shows Mrs McCann going from laughing to sad. There is the interview where they are glum throughout and then it ends and they change to what appears to be cheerful mode in an instant. The two examples show that what is being presented to the Public may not necessarily be what they are feeling at the time. It might be argued that the sadness we see is brought about by having to talk about their daughter and when the cameras stop rolling and they stop needing to talk about her they are able to appear happier. That would be fair enough and quite likely true I suppose but it wouldn't convince me that the faces on screen are not prepared faces made to garner the most sympathy from the public because I am a bit cynical. Joe Public, if they feel a little like me and wonders about some of what has been presented by the McCanns over the years, on seeing this switch in their disposition, in my opinion, may be inclined to believe them less, thus them losing sympathy and support.

On the flip side of the coin, photos from Donegal, cake candle blowing, ? bruises on wrists type photos are just that, photos with no evidence of change. As you pointed out Jean, people may choose alternate identities to use on this forum so Billy Bobs telling me that they are an expert in photoshopping and therefore know that the child in one of these photos is actually a garden broom dressed up to look like a child because of a fuzzy white line running down the length of its elbow doesn't convince me and I see, therefore, no reason to scrutinise the photo further and discover potential special needs syndromes and little aliens playing in the background. Billy Bobs might well be a photoshop expert but he could just as likely be a he/shevenomspitingnastypieceofworkKateMcaCannlovingtrollpro burger flipper parading as a photoshop expert "anti". There isn't substantial proof of any changes made to these photos offered that comes from a known credible source. All we have is our opinions and my opinion is that it is a bridge to far to imagine the McCanns or one of their entourage going to all that trouble to change a few photos. If they were doing that does common sense not scream that maybe they might have changed the bruising too so it wasn't seen by all and sundry?

I have read people questioning the number of candles on the birthday cake and then declaring why would Madeleine be blowing out the candles on a cake meant for her younger twins. Well simply put - are some of you that mean that you would deny your child a turn at taking part in what is usually such an exciting thing for a child? Let your imaginations run a little wilder (though that could prove dangerous with some of the imaginations I see running wild here) - the twins birthday party - the twins blow out their candles possibly with a little help from mum or dad - Madeleine wants to have a go too - candles are re-lit - Madeleine is picked up and gets a turn at blowing out the candles on the cake. Nothing suspicious and no need to dissect the photo to bits looking for the little green man hidden somewhere in it that proves that Madeleine isn't really a human child or the photoshopping that simply must be there if we look hard enough or that Kate's ideas on clothing her came out of the Ark.

The photo with the bruising has been mentioned as an indicator of her not being cared for and worse. What proof does anybody have of that? And if, that big if again, she were ever to be found having been abducted are those of you who yell and harp that they didn't want her and didn't care about her, and those of you who intimate that maybe they let one of their mates do the unspeakable to her, are you going to write a sincere apology to Mrs McCann for having spouted some of the most "nasty piece of work" statements written? Or will we see a new barrage of hate directed under the banner of "so many years have gone by how do we know that it is truly Madeleine"?

I truly hope that none of you find yourselves hitting headlines for anything as remotely emotive as we see in this case. Some Billy Bob on some forum will turn and scrutinise you and yours with the finest of toothcombs. Pictures of your children will be examined in minute detail looking for a reason for this or for that. Your horses' nosebags will be turned inside out looking for that vital piece of evidence that can be sent to the Police by Billy Bobs and that proves that you did (enter any reportable crime here). Famous Xmas carols, poems and songs will have their words changed by Billy Bobs and posted on a forum in order to hurt and accuse you of something not yet proven. Your neighbours will receive literature about you through their letterboxes delivered by Billy Bob's mate whilst Billy Bob hides in a bush near the bottom of your front garden. Billy Bobs will scream unfair play if you try and fight back by taking him to court. And all that before you have even been arrested. But then as many of you seem to be of the we do no wrong ilk, I suppose it is only those of us a little less than perfect, who do let our children have a turn at blowing out cake candles when it is actually not their birthday, who do get it wrong fashion sensewise sometimes, who can manage to drink a bottle of wine to ourselves in one evening and who do believe in innocent until proven guilty and accept that our thoughts before that point are nothing more than suspicions and opinions, who should be running scared of Billy Bob and his mates.

i don\'t know





avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Guest on 18.04.12 11:49

Getting rather stuck into Tony there Kolioli, please attack the posts not the posters - Billy Bobs or anyone else are entitled to his views and opinions. GM said he has no problem with anyone purporting a theory didn't he. You have your opinion, others here have differing opinions, but that is what freedom of speech is all about.

I agree, everyone is innocent until proven guility. However this case in unprecedented, because unlike any other case in history, we actually have the police files containing loads of information and witness statements. People are therefore likely to question the inconsistencies. We also have had more interviews and articles on the parents, with direct quotes from them. Isn't it human nature to question things that do not seem right? Do you not question anything?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by tigger on 18.04.12 12:39

Kololi, you seem to think that the opinion of one poster must be the opinion of all of us?
E.g. the bruising - children do bruise, it's no big deal. I don't think it's significant.
Imo there is evidence not so much of neglect as indifference. Why send your two and a half year old to your family for Christmas? Why have Maddie looked after by the Paynes (Majorca) so that you can have 'quality time' with the twins? This is not speculation but fact.

The reason for a lot of the speculation is very simple, the parents have given us a story which simply doesn't work on the basis of the statements of witnesses and indeed, their own statements.
They have provided photographs which do not make sense in as far as the dates, relative sizes of the children etc. are concerned.
They have had unprecedented help from governments agencies right from the start.

You see where I'm going - it's inevitable that there is going to be speculation. They were arguidos up to mid 2008 - and they have not been cleared. Their arguido status has been lifted and the case was shelved, with the possibility of opening the case any time.

Your posts would be read far more attentively if they were a lot shorter imo. Kololi. Get your opinion out in short paragraphs, you'll get clearer answers and you won't feel so hard done by. Wink

P.S. re the billy bobs photofreak, broomstick dressed up etc. That is a really sloppy effort - one of the easiest to detect. I do have qualifications in that field, from art and design and a family member works in digital design and agrees with my findings. He has far better qualifications than I have. Re the birthday photo, we were commenting mainly on how un-party like it was. The cake is for the twins, fine. But where is the party? - Are either of the women smiling? It looks like a chore more than having fun. As it happens, the arms in that picture are like the statue of Lacaoon and the snakes. Really weird.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Guest on 18.04.12 12:42

I would like to reassure everyone that I am indeed a willowy vision of loveliness, totally deserving of being searched for in the event of my going missing.

Thank you for your last posting Candyfloss. It is a mystery (I trust that I'm not upsetting anyone by using that word) to me that the pros get themselves into a twist over Tony in particular. If I felt that he was a fantasist and the things he says and does are all totally barking, I would simply ignore him. I certainly wouldn't draw attention to him and make his findings available to more people.

I can understand how people who only look at The Sun ("read" is too strong a word) and have no access to the Internet will believe the McCanns but it's very difficult to fathom out why more intelligent people have fallen for their nonsense.

P.S. In response to Tigger, I don't think it has been established that Madeleine was sent to stay with her grandmother without the rest of her family at Christmas 2005 - it's possible that they all went there.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by tigger on 18.04.12 14:57

Jean wrote:

P.S. In response to Tigger, I don't think it has been established that Madeleine was sent to stay with her grandmother without the rest of her family at Christmas 2005 - it's possible that they all went there.
unquote

I'll look it up later. I got it from AnnaEsse and the original source was Aunty Phil I think - as usual..

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Christmas 2005

Post by Guest on 18.04.12 17:07

Hi there Tigger. This is a link to a story in which Eileen says that Madeleine spent Christmas with her. She then goes on to say that the arrangements with the family the next year were different and I personally interpret that as meaning that the whole family was there in 2005 too.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2008/04/27/madeleine-mccann-s-gran-on-the-family-s-year-of-tears-78057-20395732/
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by tigger on 18.04.12 17:27

Jean wrote:Hi there Tigger. This is a link to a story in which Eileen says that Madeleine spent Christmas with her. She then goes on to say that the arrangements with the family the next year were different and I personally interpret that as meaning that the whole family was there in 2005 too.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2008/04/27/madeleine-mccann-s-gran-on-the-family-s-year-of-tears-78057-20395732/

It may be where AnnaEsse got it from, it was a short article by her on Zimbio, I've just trawled through dozens and can't find it. I'll just have to ask her - I think it was definitely last year I saw it.
The Majorca holiday where Maddie was looked after in the afternoons I think, by the Paynes, was in the statements of possibly Stuart and Zara or otherwise JT and ROB?
Thanks.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by Miraflores on 18.04.12 17:39

I just read this as one year they all went up for Christmas, the next year they varied things and went for New Year instead. I didn't construe it as Madeleine being sent on her own.
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kate composes herself for interview from smiley to serious in 4 seconds

Post by tigger on 18.04.12 19:24

This is from AnnaEsse (Anna Andress) http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/search/label/Philomena%20McCann
Video of Philomena M.
article date is 11.4.11


Philomena McCann, in response to the question, "Sean and Amelie, what have they been told has happened?"

'No, they haven't been told. Eh, they ask about Madeleine, they ask quite regularly, but Gerry and Kate have not told them where she is...'

They have not told the twins where Madeleine is? What?!! Does that mean that Gerry and Kate know where she is?

Quick correction by Aunty Phil!

'Well, we don't know where she is, but they haven't actually said, eh, that she's missing. They think that maybe she's with...'

They? Which they? The twins or Kate and Gerry? Whoever they are, who is it that they think Madeleine is with? And why should they think Madeleine is with that person/persons?

Quick change of course here for Aunty Phil. Bet she wishes her niece had disappeared in the pre-internet days when interviews were paraphrased by reporters and it was easy to deny having said something! But woops! It was out of her mouth and recorded! Who thought Madeleine was with the unnamed person/people? Kate and Gerry? Who would they think Madeleine was with? The twins thought that? Maybe they assumed or were told that Madeleine was with her grandmother in Scotland or were just allowed to think that?

And so Philomena carries on, waffling away to try to cover up, in my opinion, that she's just said that and the rest of what she burbles on about is not an answer to the question and it's really apropos of nothing.

No, (No what? What was she saying 'no,' to?) because we have a large family and they appear regularly (They 'appear,' like Frankie Howard might say, 'Just like that!'? The members of this large family just 'appear,' and Madeleine just disappears into thin air! for their next trick!) out in Portugal or when they were down in Leicester. (Which they?) So, they're kinda used to the kids being taken away for a day or their..(Suspended sentence here? Their what? Or their who? Doing what?) And you know, kids at two don't realise how long a period of time is. You know, it's different. They know they're not seeing Madeleine (It would be pretty strange if they didn't know they weren't seeing her!) They'll ask and then they're away playing again.

Well, I think that was not very helpful for Kate and Gerry, Aunty Phil! You've given the impression that Kate and Gerry know where Madeleine is and that they or the twins think they know who she is with. Not helpful at all!
unquote
[b]

I've left the comments in, but here imo is PM saying that Kate and Gerry? are used to the kids being taken away for the day or their ...what?holidays?
weekends?
Either that or the twins are quite used to their sister being away, an impression given by this interview in any case. imo of course.
Meanwhile - I'm searching for the Christmas quote.
But also at the back of my mind is the question from the PJ list: was it the case they considered giving the guardianship of Maddie to one of the family?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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