Why I Doubt the Abduction Theory

by Oh come on 09.03.13 1:14

I originally posted this in the welcome section in the summer of last year, in reply to miraflores asking me what made me question the abduction theory.
I would like to know if any of the following points are incorrect.

Factors that made me question

KM washing her missing daughters toy cuddlecat 4-5 days after her childs disappearance.

2. The Portuguese police finding no evidence that the windows had been forced (no marks left on the Aluminium frame or disturbance of lichen on windowsill.

3. The admission by Kate McCann that she did not physically search for her child the night she went missing. This was given in a BBC interview before Clarence Mitchell took control.

4. The cadaver dog alerting to various areas including behind the sofa, in the parents bedroom cupboard, to clothing, car keys, and the hire car.

5. The interview with Philomena M. where she says on radio that Gerry and Kate haven't told the twins where madeleine is then corrects heself.

6. The various statements buy the family and the MC lawyer's that people were accusing them of killing their child. When the accusation from the Portuguese was that they had covered up a tragic accident.

7. Jane Tanner passing by Gerry and Jez without them noticing.

8. The seemingly deliberate attempts by JT to muddy the waters in her long, rambling and partly incomprehensible statements.

9. JT again, How her memory improves with time as regards her description of the would be abducter.

10. Gerry's reaction (body language) when asked by Sandra F. (Portuguese TV presenter) if they had ever given sedatives to their children.

11. The reaction of K and GM when the local police arrived at the flat (beating the beds with their hands). Seemed more in line with grieving parents than frantic ones.

12. Claiming to have left the patio doors open while walking past them to enter the locked front door which was significantly further away.

13. The opinion of Prof D Barclay ( one of the experts) who gave his opinion on a Channel 4 doc (which is strangley difficult to find anywhere on the internet.)

14. The clearly biased, in favour of the McCann's, press coverage we have had for years. Personally i was insulted by the panorama doc in May of this year which failed to mention that it was a friend of the McCanns who claims to see the abductor taking the child.

15. The lack of tears by KM in that first statement to the press.

16. The writing of a timeline the night their daughter dissappeared.

17. The refusal to take a polygraph test after previously claiming they would.

18. The opinion of the Portuguese authorities that the parents were hiding something.
19. The deletion of phone records from some of the groups phones.
20. The witness who said she saw the open car boot night after night.

by plebgate 09.03.13 9:36

Thanks for that Oh come on.
I think your post and your user name sums my thoughts up very well.

by iluvpelageya 10.03.13 11:48

Oh come on wrote:I originally posted this in the welcome section in the summer of last year, in reply to miraflores asking me what made me question the abduction theory.
I would like to know if any of the following points are incorrect.

Factors that made me question

KM washing her missing daughters toy cuddlecat 4-5 days after her childs disappearance.

2. The Portuguese police finding no evidence that the windows had been forced (no marks left on the Aluminium frame or disturbance of lichen on windowsill.

3. The admission by Kate McCann that she did not physically search for her child the night she went missing. This was given in a BBC interview before Clarence Mitchell took control.

4. The cadaver dog alerting to various areas including behind the sofa, in the parents bedroom cupboard, to clothing, car keys, and the hire car.

5. The interview with Philomena M. where she says on radio that Gerry and Kate haven't told the twins where madeleine is then corrects heself.

6. The various statements buy the family and the MC lawyer's that people were accusing them of killing their child. When the accusation from the Portuguese was that they had covered up a tragic accident.

7. Jane Tanner passing by Gerry and Jez without them noticing.

8. The seemingly deliberate attempts by JT to muddy the waters in her long, rambling and partly incomprehensible statements.

9. JT again, How her memory improves with time as regards her description of the would be abducter.

10. Gerry's reaction (body language) when asked by Sandra F. (Portuguese TV presenter) if they had ever given sedatives to their children.

11. The reaction of K and GM when the local police arrived at the flat (beating the beds with their hands). Seemed more in line with grieving parents than frantic ones.

12. Claiming to have left the patio doors open while walking past them to enter the locked front door which was significantly further away.

13. The opinion of Prof D Barclay ( one of the experts) who gave his opinion on a Channel 4 doc (which is strangley difficult to find anywhere on the internet.)

14. The clearly biased, in favour of the McCann's, press coverage we have had for years. Personally i was insulted by the panorama doc in May of this year which failed to mention that it was a friend of the McCanns who claims to see the abductor taking the child.

15. The lack of tears by KM in that first statement to the press.

16. The writing of a timeline the night their daughter dissappeared.

17. The refusal to take a polygraph test after previously claiming they would.

18. The opinion of the Portuguese authorities that the parents were hiding something.
19. The deletion of phone records from some of the groups phones.
20. The witness who said she saw the open car boot night after night.

Hi Oh Come On
Thanks for sharing your reasons with us.

7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life. The Portuguese police had JT down as a witness of little use from the very beginning. I'd go along with that. Her story changes every time she tells it, as you point out in 9.

11.Your guess is as good as mine. Apart from bad acting, or drinking too much wine, I am at a loss to give any kind of explanation for the McC's behaviour.

13. There was a copy of that Channel 4 Dispatches programme on The McCann Files. The screens are now blank. But if you scroll down further, you will find a transcript of the programme. If you scroll down yet further you will find a monograph by David Barclay as well.

15. Some of us do our crying in private.

20. Yes, that certainly looks suspicious. However, if you see the full unedited version of the car experiment with the cadaverene hound, it does not look so good. It would be romantic if Eddie had gone straight to the Scenic, looked at the ceiling and started barking. In fact, he sniffed around and moved on to the next car. Martin Grimes had to call him back (I think) three times, before he would register. As they say, nothing is perfect.

by Guest 10.03.13 12:06

iluvpelageya wrote:
[...]
7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life.
[...]

***
Would the same thing have happened, if the three of you were in a dark and deadly silent street and you were wearing flipflops? I think they might even have registered you, if you were a stranger to them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** 10.03.13 12:09

20. - The full video shows Eddie behaving exactly the same with other cars that he is called back to several times. So it's part of the routine imo. He also checks other cars first.

by pennylane 10.03.13 12:38

tigger wrote:20. - The full video shows Eddie behaving exactly the same with other cars that he is called back to several times. So it's part of the routine imo. He also checks other cars first.

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

If you watch the airport luggage sniffer dogs, the handler will invariably take the dog back over bags before going to another section, and it is often then that the dogs alert to illegal substances hidden within the luggage. It is normal procedure.....

by iluvpelageya 11.03.13 1:10

tigger wrote:20. - The full video shows Eddie behaving exactly the same with other cars that he is called back to several times. So it's part of the routine imo. He also checks other cars first.

Then in that case I could not have been watching the full unedited version. Also, I am not a dog handler. The only dog we had handled me.

by iluvpelageya 11.03.13 2:04

Châtelaine wrote:
iluvpelageya wrote:
[...]
7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life.
[...]
***
Would the same thing have happened, if the three of you were in a dark and deadly silent street and you were wearing flipflops? I think they might even have registered you, if you were a stranger to them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

When two men are talking about their tennis backhands or soccer or film actresses or whatever, things can get - how shall we say? - intense? They may have had their backs to her. They may have been so drunk that if JT had cartwheeled down the road, they wouldn't have noticed. As it is a holiday complex, there would be people walking about all the time, even during the evening.

But it is irrelevant anyway. If she said she saw the two of them talking as she was passing them, then that is probably correct. How else did she know they were there? And if the two men didn't notice her, that doesn't matter. They both confirm they were there. What it does not do is confirm GMcC's story that he went into the apartment and checked out the kids. He may have seen this other guy, had a conversation with him, and went back to the party without checking on the kids at all. I mean, he says he looked over Madeleine (with the lights off), saw how beautiful she was and realised how lucky he was. Well, I don't have to believe that. And I don't.

The only important thing from my point of view is that this phantasm she saw at the end of the road changes with every telling, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to ignore her testimony completely. You will save yourself a lot of time that way.

by jd 11.03.13 2:25

2. The Portuguese police finding no evidence that the windows had been forced (no marks left on the Aluminium frame or disturbance of lichen on windowsill.

There are only 2 people (if you can call them that) that ever "saw" the shutters open...kate and gerry mccann (This should tell you all you need to know)....just their words words words, nothing else

3. The admission by Kate McCann that she did not physically search for her child the night she went missing. This was given in a BBC interview before Clarence Mitchell took control.

In the bewk (half written by someone else) she says she did search!!! If you ever want to highlight a lie then this is one of them

5. The interview with Philomena M. where she says on radio that Gerry and Kate haven't told the twins where madeleine is then corrects heself.

Very telling

9. JT again, How her memory improves with time as regards her description of the would be abducter.

Her abductor has changed from appearance to sex to everything. from not seeing a face to then describing a face...This is so laughable that anyone with an IQ over 5 can even think of giving this witness any credit, but I guess when you are protected by the UK government on a different wider agenda they will spin anything, and as proven most believe ANYTHING the government tells us...Reality of life, we know this and they know this

by **tigger** 11.03.13 8:56

iluvpelageya wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
iluvpelageya wrote:
[...]
7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life.
[...]
***
Would the same thing have happened, if the three of you were in a dark and deadly silent street and you were wearing flipflops? I think they might even have registered you, if you were a stranger to them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

When two men are talking about their tennis backhands or soccer or film actresses or whatever, things can get - how shall we say? - intense? They may have had their backs to her. They may have been so drunk that if JT had cartwheeled down the road, they wouldn't have noticed. As it is a holiday complex, there would be people walking about all the time, even during the evening.

But it is irrelevant anyway. If she said she saw the two of them talking as she was passing them, then that is probably correct. How else did she know they were there? And if the two men didn't notice her, that doesn't matter. They both confirm they were there. What it does not do is confirm GMcC's story that he went into the apartment and checked out the kids. He may have seen this other guy, had a conversation with him, and went back to the party without checking on the kids at all. I mean, he says he looked over Madeleine (with the lights off), saw how beautiful she was and realised how lucky he was. Well, I don't have to believe that. And I don't.

The only important thing from my point of view is that this phantasm she saw at the end of the road changes with every telling, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to ignore her testimony completely. You will save yourself a lot of time that way.

Well, there are several solutions to JT knowing they were there without her physical presence being necessary.
Gerry might have told her. The note about JT seeing an abductor at 9.15 is on the timelines, written whilst Gerry was sitting at the table but apparently unaware - too distressed, iirc with his head in his hands according to ROB.
Not quite what you're looking for in an emergency.

So there was JT who'd seen Gerry and JW and Eggman.
There was Gerry who knew that JT had seen Eggman and seen him and JW. ROB who was writing it all down.
There was JW who knew he'd seen Gerry, but didn't know he hadn't seen JT or Eggman even though he was facing in that direction.

Well, every reason to knock on JW's door at 1.00 am and to remind him he'd seen Gerry for some time that evening and no, his offer of helping to look for Maddie was declined. Plenty of people out there doing that particular pointless job.

by iluvpelageya 11.03.13 10:20

tigger wrote:
iluvpelageya wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
iluvpelageya wrote:
[...]
7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life.
[...]
***
Would the same thing have happened, if the three of you were in a dark and deadly silent street and you were wearing flipflops? I think they might even have registered you, if you were a stranger to them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

When two men are talking about their tennis backhands or soccer or film actresses or whatever, things can get - how shall we say? - intense? They may have had their backs to her. They may have been so drunk that if JT had cartwheeled down the road, they wouldn't have noticed. As it is a holiday complex, there would be people walking about all the time, even during the evening.

But it is irrelevant anyway. If she said she saw the two of them talking as she was passing them, then that is probably correct. How else did she know they were there? And if the two men didn't notice her, that doesn't matter. They both confirm they were there. What it does not do is confirm GMcC's story that he went into the apartment and checked out the kids. He may have seen this other guy, had a conversation with him, and went back to the party without checking on the kids at all. I mean, he says he looked over Madeleine (with the lights off), saw how beautiful she was and realised how lucky he was. Well, I don't have to believe that. And I don't.

The only important thing from my point of view is that this phantasm she saw at the end of the road changes with every telling, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to ignore her testimony completely. You will save yourself a lot of time that way.

Well, there are several solutions to JT knowing they were there without her physical presence being necessary.
Gerry might have told her. The note about JT seeing an abductor at 9.15 is on the timelines, written whilst Gerry was sitting at the table but apparently unaware - too distressed, iirc with his head in his hands according to ROB.
Not quite what you're looking for in an emergency.

So there was JT who'd seen Gerry and JW and Eggman.
There was Gerry who knew that JT had seen Eggman and seen him and JW. ROB who was writing it all down.
There was JW who knew he'd seen Gerry, but didn't know he hadn't seen JT or Eggman even though he was facing in that direction.

Well, every reason to knock on JW's door at 1.00 am and to remind him he'd seen Gerry for some time that evening and no, his offer of helping to look for Maddie was declined. Plenty of people out there doing that particular pointless job.

Hi Tigger
Sorry to appear like a cynic or a misanthrope, but I can tell you from personal experience that dealing with human witnesses is really a waste of time. The only witness in this case that I give any credibility to at all is that guy with the groovy moustache who talks about the locks.

You are talking about a bunch of people who have been in a restaurant. Not many are wearing their wristwatches because it will interfere with their suntan, and if they were wearing one, they probably didn't look at it the entire evening. They are in divers states of inebriation. Perhaps a few of them are mentally ill. Who knows? What you are doing is trying to apply logic where logic does not apply. Even something as simple as the meeting between GM and JW is jumbled even without JT. This pair can't even agree on what side of the road they were standing. Whether JT was physically there or not does not matter. Her embellishment with every telling (And she is not the only one.) makes her useless as a witness. There is no point in asking her anything.

It is the same with the Smiths. I know everybody loves the Smiths here, because they are telling everybody what they want to hear. But if you look at them objectively (night out in a restaurant), a porter carrying a sack of onions from a lock-up into a restaurant kitchen becomes a man carrying a child. Then it becomes GM. What is the difference between this family and the myriad of Madeleine sightings from all over the world? What makes the Smiths more credible?

You try to find a line-of-best-fit through the statements of the Tapas 9 if you like, Tigger. But the only results this brings, so far as I have read, are the involvement of MI6, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, Skull 'n' Bones, Ol' Uncle Tom Cobley an' all. BTW, how many people here know that there is a coffee shop called Templars in Rothley.(True) So that's another secret society involved.

But for me, I prefer concrete evidence.

by Guest 11.03.13 10:38

iluvpelageya wrote:

It is the same with the Smiths. I know everybody loves the Smiths here, because they are telling everybody what they want to hear. But if you look at them objectively (night out in a restaurant), a porter carrying a sack of onions from a lock-up into a restaurant kitchen becomes a man carrying a child. Then it becomes GM. What is the difference between this family and the myriad of Madeleine sightings from all over the world? What makes the Smiths more credible?

Ah yes, the sack of onions with beige trousers and buttons[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] You are jesting I hope[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Liz Eagles 11.03.13 10:40

iluvpelageya wrote:
tigger wrote:
iluvpelageya wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
iluvpelageya wrote:
[...]
7. I have passed people who have been involved in conversation at a closer distance in broad daylight. And they haven't noticed me. Story of my life.
[...]
***
Would the same thing have happened, if the three of you were in a dark and deadly silent street and you were wearing flipflops? I think they might even have registered you, if you were a stranger to them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

When two men are talking about their tennis backhands or soccer or film actresses or whatever, things can get - how shall we say? - intense? They may have had their backs to her. They may have been so drunk that if JT had cartwheeled down the road, they wouldn't have noticed. As it is a holiday complex, there would be people walking about all the time, even during the evening.

But it is irrelevant anyway. If she said she saw the two of them talking as she was passing them, then that is probably correct. How else did she know they were there? And if the two men didn't notice her, that doesn't matter. They both confirm they were there. What it does not do is confirm GMcC's story that he went into the apartment and checked out the kids. He may have seen this other guy, had a conversation with him, and went back to the party without checking on the kids at all. I mean, he says he looked over Madeleine (with the lights off), saw how beautiful she was and realised how lucky he was. Well, I don't have to believe that. And I don't.

The only important thing from my point of view is that this phantasm she saw at the end of the road changes with every telling, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to ignore her testimony completely. You will save yourself a lot of time that way.

Well, there are several solutions to JT knowing they were there without her physical presence being necessary.
Gerry might have told her. The note about JT seeing an abductor at 9.15 is on the timelines, written whilst Gerry was sitting at the table but apparently unaware - too distressed, iirc with his head in his hands according to ROB.
Not quite what you're looking for in an emergency.

So there was JT who'd seen Gerry and JW and Eggman.
There was Gerry who knew that JT had seen Eggman and seen him and JW. ROB who was writing it all down.
There was JW who knew he'd seen Gerry, but didn't know he hadn't seen JT or Eggman even though he was facing in that direction.

Well, every reason to knock on JW's door at 1.00 am and to remind him he'd seen Gerry for some time that evening and no, his offer of helping to look for Maddie was declined. Plenty of people out there doing that particular pointless job.

Hi Tigger
Sorry to appear like a cynic or a misanthrope, but I can tell you from personal experience that dealing with human witnesses is really a waste of time. The only witness in this case that I give any credibility to at all is that guy with the groovy moustache who talks about the locks.

You are talking about a bunch of people who have been in a restaurant. Not many are wearing their wristwatches because it will interfere with their suntan, and if they were wearing one, they probably didn't look at it the entire evening. They are in divers states of inebriation. Perhaps a few of them are mentally ill. Who knows? What you are doing is trying to apply logic where logic does not apply. Even something as simple as the meeting between GM and JW is jumbled even without JT. This pair can't even agree on what side of the road they were standing. Whether JT was physically there or not does not matter. Her embellishment with every telling (And she is not the only one.) makes her useless as a witness. There is no point in asking her anything.

It is the same with the Smiths. I know everybody loves the Smiths here, because they are telling everybody what they want to hear. But if you look at them objectively (night out in a restaurant), a porter carrying a sack of onions from a lock-up into a restaurant kitchen becomes a man carrying a child. Then it becomes GM. What is the difference between this family and the myriad of Madeleine sightings from all over the world? What makes the Smiths more credible?

You try to find a line-of-best-fit through the statements of the Tapas 9 if you like, Tigger. But the only results this brings, so far as I have read, are the involvement of MI6, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, Skull 'n' Bones, Ol' Uncle Tom Cobley an' all. BTW, how many people here know that there is a coffee shop called Templars in Rothley.(True) So that's another secret society involved.

But for me, I prefer concrete evidence.

Christ, we need to alert the police forces of the entire planet that there's no point in taking witness statements as they are a waste of time.

by plebgate 11.03.13 10:45

@Iluvpelageya
Are you saying that they were all drunk so their statements are worthless?

by Liz Eagles 11.03.13 10:53

plebgate wrote:@Iluvpelageya
Are you saying that they were all drunk so their statements are worthless?

The rogatory interviews didn't ask each individual how much alcohol they had drunk that evening. The PJ would have known the signs of drunkenness in their original interviews. The Tapas Bar records show how many bottles of wine were served. The Mc's also had a drink before they left the apartment according to Kate. There were no drugs test on the adults either as far as I am aware.

@iluvpelagaya - the not wearing a wrist watch/suntan remark is just that - remarkable. Let's remember I have yet to see a picture of K and G in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance without a watch - while they went on their jogs in the sunshine. To suggest that parents wouldn't wear a watch to the table in the evening when they were allegedly checking their children every half an hour is to use Gerry's favourite phrase 'absolutely ludicrous'.

by suzyjohnson 11.03.13 11:02

'.........................What is the difference between this (the Smith) family and the myriad of Madeleine sightings from all over the world? What makes the Smiths more credible? ...........'

Well, the fact that they were in the relevant area, at the relevant time for a start.

by Guest 11.03.13 11:03

aquila wrote:
plebgate wrote:@Iluvpelageya
Are you saying that they were all drunk so their statements are worthless?

The rogatory interviews didn't ask each individual how much alcohol they had drunk that evening. The PJ would have known the signs of drunkenness in their original interviews. The Tapas Bar records show how many bottles of wine were served. The Mc's also had a drink before they left the apartment according to Kate. There were no drugs test on the adults either as far as I am aware.

@iluvpelagaya - the not wearing a wrist watch/suntan remark is just that - remarkable. Let's remember I have yet to see a picture of K and G in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance without a watch - while they went on their jogs in the sunshine. To suggest that parents wouldn't wear a watch to the table in the evening when they were allegedly checking their children every half an hour is to use Gerry's favourite phrase 'absolutely ludicrous'.

In one of GM's statements (rogatory) IIRC he says it was 9.04pm by my watch. Words to that effect I think.

by iluvpelageya 11.03.13 11:17

Ah yes, the sack of onions with beige trousers and buttons You are jesting I hope

You may be familiar with the following verse from a famous folk song:

And as I went home on Tuesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a coat behind the door where my old coat should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that coat behind the door where my old coat should be?
Ah, you're drunk, you're drunk you silly old fool, still you cannot see
That's a woollen blanket that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But buttons in a blanket sure I never saw before

@Iluvpelageya
Are you saying that they were all drunk so their statements are worthless?

@Plebgate
Are you arguing that a statement taken from someone who is drunk or high or otherwise mentally incapacitated has the same status as a statement taken from someone who is sober and sane?

by Liz Eagles 11.03.13 11:18

@ iluvpelageya - from your previous post re not trusting human witnesses - what other kind are there? The dogs are good at witnessing things that happened in the past but you don't seem to care for those either.

@candyfloss

The McCanns quote time and they quote it often - even to the point of GM offering info about the last photo and what time it was. I think this was in the Oprah interview. It would be good if someone could post the correct link off the top of their head.

by Liz Eagles 11.03.13 11:19

iluvpelageya wrote:
Ah yes, the sack of onions with beige trousers and buttons You are jesting I hope

You may be familiar with the following verse from a famous folk song:

And as I went home on Tuesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a coat behind the door where my old coat should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that coat behind the door where my old coat should be?
Ah, you're drunk, you're drunk you silly old fool, still you cannot see
That's a woollen blanket that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But buttons in a blanket sure I never saw before

@Iluvpelageya
Are you saying that they were all drunk so their statements are worthless?

@Plebgate
Are you arguing that a statement taken from someone who is drunk or high or otherwise mentally incapacitated has the same status as a statement taken from someone who is sober and sane?

Are you suggesting that the McCanns were drunk or high or mentally incapacitated? This is just too ridiculous. I've bitten your bait. No more comments from me.

by Guest 11.03.13 11:22

iluvpelageya wrote:
Ah yes, the sack of onions with beige trousers and buttons You are jesting I hope

You may be familiar with the following verse from a famous folk song:

And as I went home on Tuesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a coat behind the door where my old coat should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that coat behind the door where my old coat should be?
Ah, you're drunk, you're drunk you silly old fool, still you cannot see
That's a woollen blanket that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But buttons in a blanket sure I never saw before

@Iluvpelageya
Are you saying that they were all drunk so their statements are worthless?

@Plebgate
Are you arguing that a statement taken from someone who is drunk or high or otherwise mentally incapacitated has the same status as a statement taken from someone who is sober and sane?

No-one was drunk, the statements were taken the day after, and in days after that. The Smiths were back in Ireland when they gave their statements IIRC then flew back to PDL on 26 May to give them to the PJ. Were they still drunk???

by Liz Eagles 11.03.13 11:29

@Candyfloss,

so far we have excuses for not wearing watches due to all over suntan, excuses for not relying upon human witnesses, drink, drugs and mental health issues and doubt cast on cadaver and blood dogs.

If I were a cynic I'd say we have touched on the very areas that cause a running sore to the clever folk.

ETA. It will be the phone and creche records next.

by iluvpelageya 11.03.13 11:33

[quote="aquila"]

plebgate wrote:

@iluvpelagaya - the not wearing a wrist watch/suntan remark is just that - remarkable.

Thank you, aquila.

Let's remember I have yet to see a picture of K and G in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance without a watch - while they went on their jogs in the sunshine. To suggest that parents wouldn't wear a watch to the table in the evening when they were allegedly checking their children every half an hour is to use Gerry's favourite phrase 'absolutely ludicrous'.

I am sorry, aquila, but absolutely ridiculous is to make a statement like PARENTS would never go out without a wristwatch is like saying that parents don't beat their kids, or parents don't go out of an evening and leave their kids unsupervised back in the apartment.

I was also referring to the Tapas 9, not only to the McCs.

As it happens, (Maybe I shouldn't say that these days!) I normally do not wear a watch while out on holiday - partly because it interferes with my suntan, partly because I don't like wearing wristwatches anyway. Having said that, if my wife and I went out for a meal or to see a show, we always brought the kids with us. Some parents do do that, you know.

by **tigger** 11.03.13 11:37

@ Ilovemyselfsomuchpelailgishi... Sorry, can't be bothered to learn these avatars by heart.

You are sure they were drunk - without having evidence of this at all.
You are also sure that any evidence provided isn't worth anything because they were drunk, although you have no actual evidence of that first principle in your argument. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But fascinating information about your own wrist-watch wearing habits. Thank you.

by Guest 11.03.13 11:41

[quote="iluvpelageya"]

aquila wrote:
plebgate wrote:

@iluvpelagaya - the not wearing a wrist watch/suntan remark is just that - remarkable.

Thank you, aquila.

Let's remember I have yet to see a picture of K and G in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance without a watch - while they went on their jogs in the sunshine. To suggest that parents wouldn't wear a watch to the table in the evening when they were allegedly checking their children every half an hour is to use Gerry's favourite phrase 'absolutely ludicrous'.

I am sorry, aquila, but absolutely ridiculous is to make a statement like PARENTS would never go out without a wristwatch is like saying that parents don't beat their kids, or parents don't go out of an evening and leave their kids unsupervised back in the apartment.

I was also referring to the Tapas 9, not only to the McCs.

As it happens, (Maybe I shouldn't say that these days!) I normally do not wear a watch while out on holiday - partly because it interferes with my suntan, partly because I don't like wearing wristwatches anyway. Having said that, if my wife and I went out for a meal or to see a show, we always brought the kids with us. Some parents do do that, you know.

Clarence Mitchel according to this reversed the story about the watches,

Clarence Mitchell backtracks on previous statement about watches

"Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.

The Guardian 06 April 2008

"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't...

Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008

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

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