Re: The Kipper and the Corpse

by jd 16.05.12 14:30

Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

This could have been the question gerry mcccann was asking. It certainly wasn't down to their distress they did this. Plus we have seen their 'distress' in the days after

They were in charge of calling the police. They knew that once the police arrived they would not have control of the location. They could also not know when the police would bring in the dogs. They did not call the police until about 10.40 I believe.

This is the bottom line.....They wanted to control the situation. For example, they stick by the jane tanner sighting because they control it. They ignore the Smith sighting because they have no control over it

by Ribisl 16.05.12 14:33

Agree with you tigger. After Madeleine's demise, I think the MCs were pretty much in control of the whole situation as they have continued to be in the subsequent months and years, with a possible exception of the time when they were made arguidos. They set the scene up, then they called the police. No need for such an attention grabbing, ludicrous form of distraction imho.

by jd 16.05.12 14:34

I pondered if it was a spur of the moment means of distraction?

What reason would they have a moment of distraction? from what? I don't fully understand

by Guest 16.05.12 14:40

[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

by Ribisl 16.05.12 14:49

candyfloss wrote:[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

First Gerry on the reception floor, then Gerry and Kate both on the edge of the bed in 5a. Is that correct candyfloss?

by **tigger** 16.05.12 14:49

jd wrote:
I pondered if it was a spur of the moment means of distraction?

What reason would they have a moment of distraction? from what? I don't fully understand

I'm dropping this discussion, because I've obviously upset David_uk. I did tackle the Kipper and the corpse possibly a little too fiercely. But I was thinking of the corpse of a little girl so it could never be funny for me.
I felt his attitude to be inconsistent and in this case it seemed to me inappropriate to try to compare these two scenarios. Because in the one case there is a very real dead little girl imo.
It also seemed to go right against all the theories and principles of 'keeping things simple' that D-uk keeps posting about, dismissing all other possibilities.
I took it to be a wind-up exercise in poor taste.

I'm sorry it looked like turning into a slanging match, but I stand by my remark on the TB post and the use of the word contemptuous in regard to other's theories.
So apologies if I've upset anyone, there are so many dedicated people here, working for nothing, running this site - it's too valuable.
When I started here, I had quite different theories, which were tested against others' opinions and discarded, it's a process and thanks to having my ideas shot down in flames, new and improved ones arise. So chaps, I'm back to the grindstone.

by david_uk 16.05.12 14:55

yep, it was perhaps a ludicrous distraction technique.I think it was to distract. It was noticed they where not actually crying. If we discount for moment that it was not to cause a distraction or spontanous display of grief !. What was the reason?.

by jd 16.05.12 15:03

I don't know what is going on with this discussion (feel a bit lost tbh) but I think there was no distraction intended....it was asking a question of the GNR

by Guest 16.05.12 15:06

Ribisl wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

First Gerry on the reception floor, then Gerry and Kate both on the edge of the bed in 5a. Is that correct candyfloss?

According to Mr Amaral yes (it may be in witness statements too) from the truth of the lie documentary. Here is the transcript of that part of the film..........

06.04 – According to the testimony of the Ocean Club's manager, when the GNR patrol arrived on location, the child's father threw himself at the officers' feet, like a praying Arab, completely out of control over his daughter's disappearance. The same scene was repeated, according to the officers, in the couple's bedroom.

Take a look at the video.

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

by david_uk 16.05.12 15:12

candyfloss wrote:
Ribisl wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[quote tigger]

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

If you look at Mr Amarals documentary, the did the same in 5a on the beds in their bedroom.

First Gerry on the reception floor, then Gerry and Kate both on the edge of the bed in 5a. Is that correct candyfloss?

According to Mr Amaral yes (it may be in witness statements too) from the truth of the lie documentary. Here is the transcript of that part of the film..........

06.04 – According to the testimony of the Ocean Club's manager, when the GNR patrol arrived on location, the child's father threw himself at the officers' feet, like a praying Arab, completely out of control over his daughter's disappearance. The same scene was repeated, according to the officers, in the couple's bedroom.

Take a look at the video.

[url=http://www.mccannfiles.com/id225.html

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

So this was before the PJ turned up. Can we assume the first was just gerry was outside 5a and then the next, inside shortly after?. Once is odd, twice is bizzare

I dont understand the reference to Masonic signal?!. This wasnt an event filmed and broadcast live that evening! or am I missing the point on that one?

by Ribisl 16.05.12 15:14

david_uk wrote:yep, it was perhaps a ludicrous distraction technique.I think it was to distract. It was noticed they where not actually crying. If we discount for moment that it was not to cause a distraction or spontanous display of grief !. What was the reason?.

Trying to assimilate and demonstrate the feeling of insurmountable grief that they did not really feel? Their acting got better and better later on though. laughat

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 15:16

david_uk wrote:
tigger wrote:I fully understand the distraction theory. Just not how it applies to that evening.

They were in charge of calling the police. They knew that once the police arrived they would not have control of the location.
They could also not know when the police would bring in the dogs. They did not call the police until about 10.40 I believe.

The performance Gerry gave was at the OC reception, not at 5a. Might be masonic - PeterMac once found a bona fide instruction for that. If it was and - unlike in the UK - the police weren't Masons, the repeat performance covered that by pretending it was part of the distress.

Adjustments to the crime scene were made the following day when the tennis bag and the pink blanket must have been removed from 5a by a person or persons unknown. That's all we know.

The idea which was implicated that third parties were wildly trying to hide a corpse or incriminating items, makes a number of other people accessories to the fact and is in complete contradiction to david_uk's 'keeping it simple'.

I stand by my earlier remark that being 'contemptuous' of other theories is not an attitude I've come across often here. A hypothesis has to be set up in order to be disproved. I've just given my opinion on the above. It doesn't take all of the evidence of that evening into account. It isn't logical, imo.

you dont understand how the distraction applies to that evening. ok then[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Im not the only one who dismisses certain theories and im not pushing a particular overall theory either. I am not trying to take the rest of evening into account, just opening discussion on that one particular aspect , that being Gerry and kates odd behaviour of falling to the ground and crying. It was noted by various witness and always struck me as odd, it was when watching FT episode that I pondered if it was a spare of the moment means of distraction?. that is all.

What also strikes me as strange is that they both do exactly the same thing in the same manner at the same time. So no spontaneous grief.

by rainbow-fairy 16.05.12 15:19

Jean wrote:Very clever indeed. I thought it was a joke at the end when it was asked about the gorilla but yes it was really there and I hadn't seen it!

Well, I got 14 passes BUT I DID SEE THE GORILLA!!!

I wonder what that says about me? lol!

by david_uk 16.05.12 15:22

Ribisl wrote:
david_uk wrote:yep, it was perhaps a ludicrous distraction technique.I think it was to distract. It was noticed they where not actually crying. If we discount for moment that it was not to cause a distraction or spontanous display of grief !. What was the reason?.

Trying to assimilate and demonstrate the feeling of insurmountable grief that they did not really feel? Their acting got better and better later on though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

hmmm. Surely in this case they should of been assimilating and demonstrating an insurmountable urge to be outside searching for their daughter, not sat in the bedroom!?. If it was just the bedroom scene this was done I could except it was just an act of grief for show.

by jd 16.05.12 16:09

It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

by Guest 16.05.12 16:19

jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

by **Nina** 16.05.12 16:23

Thinking of a couple experiencing shock and horror imo they would have simply clung to each other not lined up side by side going through these movements. If one was doing it then surely the other would have just comforted not joined in the sequence.
In my opinion it was a distraction to either gain a viewing or to put the police off coming into that room, through courtesy and compassion. They were given a moment even though the police were there. And maybe that moment was sufficient.

by jd 16.05.12 16:23

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

There would be a delay with kate while her brain learns what gerry was doing

by Guest 16.05.12 16:28

jd wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

There would be a delay with kate while her brain learns what gerry was doing

How do you know there wasn't a split second delay?

by jd 16.05.12 16:33

I don't. But from what I seen from the reconstruction and learnt, they were in sync with each other and kate knew what to do. Even if she was just following, why when seeing her husband suddenly do this weird act did she immediately follow? I think that if it was a spur of the moment thing which she didn't know about, she would have just stood and watched perplexed at what he was doing....not joining him immediately and doing the exact same thing jimo

by **tigger** 16.05.12 16:39

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:It was done by gerry mccann alone in the Ocean Club reception...Then it was done a 2nd time later in the mccann apartment which both gerry and kate mccann were synchronous

if it was a spur of the moment distraction by gerry mccann alone in the reception, then how would kate know what to do later in the bedroom?

Follow the leader?

There would be a delay with kate while her brain learns what gerry was doing

How do you know there wasn't a split second delay?

I think Gerry simply instructed her - did a silly thing, wasn't understood - do it again makes it look as if this is our way of dealing with the calamity. Kate also said on the phone that Gerry was 'roaring like a bull'. Bulls seem to figure in some Masonic rituals. Also a very strange thing to say. So imo they were just trying to play down the ritual.
As a distraction technique they could just have talked to the guys - did they think the Portuguese would understand this over the top performance? They made sounds like crying but there were no tears.
Or is there a paralell in the JonBenet Ramsey case - because some of their MO seems to have been modelled on that.

by Guest 16.05.12 16:42

jd wrote:I don't. But from what I seen from the reconstruction and learnt, they were in sync with each other and kate knew what to do. Even if she was just following, why when seeing her husband suddenly do this weird act did she immediately follow? I think that if it was a spur of the moment thing which she didn't know about, she would have just stood and watched perplexed at what he was doing....not joining him immediately and doing the exact same thing jimo

Just for arguments sake, and speaking hypothetically, say if you suddenly walked into a room and suddenly realised something was there that shouldn't be there, let's say a camera on the bed it could be anything, and you wanted to hide it quickly from prying eyes, isn't it feasable that you would suddenly fall on it, especially on a bed. Why not crumple on the floor again?

by david_uk 16.05.12 16:58

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:I don't. But from what I seen from the reconstruction and learnt, they were in sync with each other and kate knew what to do. Even if she was just following, why when seeing her husband suddenly do this weird act did she immediately follow? I think that if it was a spur of the moment thing which she didn't know about, she would have just stood and watched perplexed at what he was doing....not joining him immediately and doing the exact same thing jimo

Just for arguments sake, and speaking hypothetically, say if you suddenly walked into a room and suddenly realised something was there that shouldn't be there, let's say a camera on the bed it could be anything, and you wanted to hide it quickly from prying eyes, isn't it feasable that you would suddenly fall on it, especially on a bed. Why not crumple on the floor again?

I will be checking later at what time if at all every room of the apartment was checked in those first 24hrs.

by jd 16.05.12 16:58

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:I don't. But from what I seen from the reconstruction and learnt, they were in sync with each other and kate knew what to do. Even if she was just following, why when seeing her husband suddenly do this weird act did she immediately follow? I think that if it was a spur of the moment thing which she didn't know about, she would have just stood and watched perplexed at what he was doing....not joining him immediately and doing the exact same thing jimo

Just for arguments sake, and speaking hypothetically, say if you suddenly walked into a room and suddenly realised something was there that shouldn't be there, let's say a camera on the bed it could be anything, and you wanted to hide it quickly from prying eyes, isn't it feasable that you would suddenly fall on it, especially on a bed. Why not crumple on the floor again?

Depends on how close I was to the bed and camera. I would probably try to deflect the prying eyes by talking about something else which would make them look at me rather than the bed and try to move them into a different direction (not physically but off their own accord), preferably out of the room. But what were the mccanns trying to hide in the reception and their bedroom? this is what I do not understand

by Ribisl 16.05.12 16:59

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:I don't. But from what I seen from the reconstruction and learnt, they were in sync with each other and kate knew what to do. Even if she was just following, why when seeing her husband suddenly do this weird act did she immediately follow? I think that if it was a spur of the moment thing which she didn't know about, she would have just stood and watched perplexed at what he was doing....not joining him immediately and doing the exact same thing jimo

Just for arguments sake, and speaking hypothetically, say if you suddenly walked into a room and suddenly realised something was there that shouldn't be there, let's say a camera on the bed it could be anything, and you wanted to hide it quickly from prying eyes, isn't it feasable that you would suddenly fall on it, especially on a bed. Why not crumple on the floor again?

And what piece of incriminating evidence do you suppose could have been on the reception floor for Gerry to throw himself upon it in the manner of a crowd-raising touchdown? winkwink

by jd 16.05.12 17:01

david_uk wrote: I will be checking later at what time if at all every room of the apartment was checked in those first 24hrs.

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

From: Jose Maria Batista Roque

Then, while his colleague remained in the hall, and the others were in the living room, the witness went through the entire apartment He opened all the cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checked under the beds and inside the washing machine. He did not see the fridge.

During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child's body

After the search, he noticed a situation that seemed unusual to him, when at a determined moment, the girl's parents kneeled down on the floor of their bedroom and placed their heads on the bed, crying. He did not notice any comments or expression from them, just crying. He says that at the main reception the father also knelt down, placing his head on the floor and crying. He did not hear the father say anything.

by Hummingbird 16.05.12 17:08

If there was something he was trying to distract from in reception it could have been a printer that was just finishing printing out some 'missing' posters!!

Was there anyone else there in reception at the time of this strange event?

by Hummingbird 16.05.12 17:13

Oh and also what about creche records perhaps he was trying to distract from those, I believe the creche area was near to reception so maybe the records were kept there! Just another thought!

by **tigger** 16.05.12 17:13

All this was just the preliminary search for the child. Nothing else, just the child. I doubt that the GNR have authority to impound anything much in such a situation, unless it was e.g. a fire arm or a knife.
And they'd had all the time in the world to set the stage and control the 'crime scene'. A camera would not have been impounded at that stage in the proceedings. Only possibly the passports, which I believe is what happened.
If they distracted the GNR with their antics for some purpose, a third party would have had to take advantage of that to hide or take something. The way the Tapas behaved that is very unlikely, they didn't seem to have a clue.

by jd 16.05.12 17:27

Hummingbird wrote:If there was something he was trying to distract from in reception it could have been a printer that was just finishing printing out some 'missing' posters!!

Was there anyone else there in reception at the time of this strange event?

Interesting point Hummingbird

@Tigger - Very true, the way the Tapas behaved, they didn't seem to have a clue

Latest topics