Re: Interesting summary of the Timelines

by russiandoll 02.09.13 16:19

windchime wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Speaking of time.... I posted over the weekend [on the topic dealing with the book ], this reference to time by Kate.

She said that she wished it were possible to rewind, even if it could be only FOR AN HOUR.

I find this an intriguing statement, my immediate question being

Which hour? and then which day?
I haven't the book but is it possible to say what this sentence is in relation to? What are the paragraphs before and after the statement regarding and what is the chapter about? Perhaps that will give a clue to which day and hour she is referring to - even it she has specifically left that out there must be some sub conscious referral to it.

Apologies windchime, I should have put the quote in context [and thanks to Petermac for doing so ]. It is interesting to note that Madeleine is not mentioned by name on the 2nd, on every other day we read her name, apart from 30th, a day when Kate does not write about anything but a supermarket trip and tapas evening meal. Nothing to do with any activities by any of her family that day. It is understandable that she would n ot go into great detail as she has written extensively about the 29th, and said that the days followed a particular pattern. This does not stop her from giving detail about the Tuesday, however, and The Wednesday, even though there is less here. About the Monday, zero. And the 2nd is a day that she appears to want to forget also.
There are many more words devoted to the pink trainer run and dog bite than there are to family activities 2nd, odd as it was their last completely happy day. If not its own chapter, I would have expected more.
We see the words " kids" and " children" used, not Amelie Sean or Madeleine on 2nd May.
And of course there is Kate wanting it on record where she slept that night.
Kate writes about wishing she could turn back time as soon as the date is mentioned, understandable in the context.
Then she narrows it down to one hour, so there is a significant period of time on this date in which she wishes she could undo events.
All imo.

by windchime 02.09.13 17:12

Thanks Russiandoll.

I think it has something to do with KM & GM having an argument of which I believe there were probably many. They have tried IMO to build this picture of a happy marriage but I really do not think that is or was the case.

If they had a row, yet another one, and this resulted in them not talking to each other and just putting on a show at the tapas bar during that evening resulting in GM walking off and KM following like a sheeples and that it carried on into the next day putting more and more pressure and stress on KM then perhaps just perhaps that is why (if she did of course) crack at bath time on the third, and why she would like to turn the clocks back 'just an hour' Or maybe it actually was the row that evening that started the ball rolling and she would like to turn the clocks back before then. Just thinking out loud really here.

Does she mention GM much this day?

by MissesWillYa 03.09.13 22:35

Hobs wrote:I am not sure where to post this particular thought, here seems as good as any.

Remember way back when kate said this interesting little nugget?

I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I'd think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking note

Not that she would do things differently, that she would not leave her children alone in an apartment in a strange foreign town.

Oh no, she would spend the second chance having a looksee around.

This simple phrase tells us where her priority is, that the abduction was lie.

She wouldn't stay home or have gerry stay home or even hire a baysitter, any of these options would nullify any chance of an abductor getting in, as there would be adults to protect the children, heck if she could go back in time, knowing what she k now knows, surely then she should have police there waiting to nab said abductor.

Maddie stays alive and with her parents and a paedophile abducotr is doing serious jail time for attempted kidnap and anything else they can think of.

Her own words tells us nothing would have changed what happed which begs the question, if nothing would have changed by them not leaving the children alone, Maddie is still missing.
Since we know then it wasn't an abductor, we are left with either accidental death or homicide.

As there were numerous doctors in the group and both parents are doctors, they could have rendered medical assistance whilst calling 911 for an ambulance.

They may not have been able to save Maddie, but they tried.
Maddie would not be missing, she would be dead but her parents did the right thing.

Since this would preclude accident we are left with homicide, either premeditated or accidental as the PL and Goncalo Amaral are allowing.
The disappearance of Maddie's body, the delay in calling 911, the conflicting stories and the non co-operation all point to this scenario.
Either the parents or a member of the tapas group is involved in someway or another in either the death, the disposal and definitely the subsequent cover up.

Innocent parents act a certain and very specific way

Guilty parents act a certain and specific way.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Maddie is long dead, the statistics indicate this, and should she have been abducted by a paedophile as claimed, she would have been dead within hours.

Children who have one missing to be found moths, or years later are all pubescent or teenagers.

They aren't going to take a 3 yr old and keep her for years since once she reached a certain age she would no longer fit their preferences.

They cite all these cases of children being found, and claim no evidence of serious harm, totally ignoring the fact that all these children were repeatedly raped and abused , even forced to have their rapists children.
If this doesn't count as serious harm kate and gerry, what does?

Didn't one of them also say they wish they'd been "with her at the time"? Which is a really strange thing to say, if they're talking about "the time" of the "abduction," since she couldn't have been "abducted" if they'd been "with her"! Do they mean the whole family of five would have been abducted together if only they'd all been in the apartment then? It's bizarre.

by **PeterMac** 04.09.13 7:42

MissesWillYa wrote:

Didn't one of them also say they wish they'd been "with her at the time"? Which is a really strange thing to say, if they're talking about "the time" of the "abduction," since she couldn't have been "abducted" if they'd been "with her"! Do they mean the whole family of five would have been abducted together if only they'd all been in the apartment then? It's bizarre.

I read that as "wish they had been with her 'at the time' to say their final goodbyes, hold her hand as she slipped away, etc etc"
Otherwise it makes no sense.

IIRC they each said something similar on different occasions. And more than once. Very odd.

by aiyoyo 04.09.13 12:38

lj wrote:
Seek truth wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
windchime wrote:Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.
Kate McCann says it here..........

She doesn't SAY (as usual) she just uses her hands, and makes these weird sounds, that we have to guess!

Funny. What's wrong with saying "oh My daughter, She was taken, she was! Oh my beautiful daughter, oh"

It's just WHOOSH! And YOU KNOW ! Etc
She's had enough time already!
Or does she need Gerry to hold her hand first?

SPEAK woman SPEAK, can you not say it truthfully? Is that it?

Kate is drunk or under the influence of another mind altering drug (altering, not improving).

She looks high as a kite, euphoric from substance rather than drink, as I thought a drunk slurs their words.

It's ODD she used her hands and a thud sound to demonstrate the 1 min 20 sec Window of Opportunity., yet she wished to go back in time for more than 1min 20 sec, she wished to have ONE HOUR to be precise to have a good look round .........now wait for this --- not to see who took Maddie, but to see who was watching them!

If they'd been watched throughout their hol. it does not make sense to narrow it down to just ONE hour wish to have a GOOD look round.
So let's put this in the correct perspective - she's had the entire duration of the holiday while this stranger was observing them that she did not notice him, yet in retrospect she wished to have (to go back in time) just to ONE particular hour to suss him out. No wonder she sounds barking mad as frog.

by joyce1938 04.09.13 12:55

the last one went to drafts you told me ,how do I retrieve it ?

by **Hobs** 04.09.13 13:10

joyce1938 wrote:the last one went to drafts you told me ,how do I retrieve it ?

Click on profile top of the screen and then click drafts

by MissesWillYa 04.09.13 14:10

PeterMac wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:

Didn't one of them also say they wish they'd been "with her at the time"? Which is a really strange thing to say, if they're talking about "the time" of the "abduction," since she couldn't have been "abducted" if they'd been "with her"! Do they mean the whole family of five would have been abducted together if only they'd all been in the apartment then? It's bizarre.
I read that as "wish they had been with her 'at the time' to say their final goodbyes, hold her hand as she slipped away, etc etc"
Otherwise it makes no sense.

IIRC they each said something similar on different occasions. And more than once. Very odd.

Good point, you're probably right that they meant something like that. I agree, it doesn't make any sense otherwise. It's so odd!

by **PeterMac** 04.09.13 16:54

They also used the expression "When IT happened", "being there when IT happened"

It is surely an isolated event, a fall, in injury, a smack, or a death.
An incident rather than a continuing sequence of entering, sedating, selecting, picking up, turning round, exiting, marching round the streets . . .

Would it be normal - even in their McScottish mangled use of the language - do use the words "IT happened" for that ?

Would you, for example, use 'IT' to describe a continuing event like the check on the children ?
"The last time I did IT was at 9:04" doesn't sound right, to me.

by jeanmonroe 04.09.13 17:03

PeterMac wrote:They also used the expression "When IT happened", "being there when IT happened"

It is surely an isolated event, a fall, in injury, a smack, or a death.
An incident rather than a continuing sequence of entering, sedating, selecting, picking up, turning round, exiting, marching round the streets . . .

Would it be normal - even in their McScottish mangled use of the language - do use the words "IT happened" for that ?

Would you, for example, use 'IT' to describe a continuing event like the check on the children ?
"The last time I did IT was at 9:04" doesn't sound right, to me.

And Rachel Oldfield did say 'they couldn't have done IT' and ' they didn't do IT'

She never did say what the IT was, that the McCanns 'couldn't have done and didn't do'!

by MissesWillYa 04.09.13 17:05

PeterMac wrote:They also used the expression "When IT happened", "being there when IT happened"

It is surely an isolated event, a fall, in injury, a smack, or a death.
An incident rather than a continuing sequence of entering, sedating, selecting, picking up, turning round, exiting, marching round the streets . . .

Would it be normal - even in their McScottish mangled use of the language - do use the words "IT happened" for that ?

Would you, for example, use 'IT' to describe a continuing event like the check on the children ?
"The last time I did IT was at 9:04" doesn't sound right, to me.

Hmm...that's a good question. I think I would say "The last time I checked was at 9:04" or just "The last time was at 9:04." To use "it happened" is definitely strange; when WHAT happened? is the natural question in anyone's mind when they hear that. The children were asleep in their beds last time you checked, or so you claim, therefore nothing was "happen[ing]" at all. An "it" happening is a whole different ball of wax.

by comperedna 04.09.13 17:19

When 'it' happened eh? I guess TM will say 'it' was an oblique reference to 'the abduction', but those sentences from other members of the T9 certainly make 'it' seem like a short, specific event rather than a process.

by russiandoll 04.09.13 17:38

I am convinced that IT was a short sharp incident, leaving a mess to be cleaned up.

    Just as would be the case if a can of beans had fallen off a shelf.

   The linguist in me keeps zooming on the language used in the book so sorry for harping on. This is what I would highlight in the most fluorescent colour.
I have taught literature and if I were teaching using this book, I would ask my students the following :

of all the words in the world which could be chosen to be critical of an inadequate reaction to hearing a child had been taken away......

why choose these ?

1. A CAN . 2. BEANS.    3. FALLEN.   4. SHELF.

and remember the concept of IMAGERY.

You have a hard casing inside of which is something solid but bathed in liquid, which, when landing after a fall from a ledge or other flat horizontal surface, would be dented and which if split open anywhere would release some liquid on to the surface on which it had landed.

And just as a matter of interest.

In what circumstances might a can of beans fall from a shelf without human intervention?
In what circumstances might that happen with human intervention?

And do you think this can contained   kidney beans, butter beans or baked beans? Remember that the writer is British.

Just some thoughts .........

by aiyoyo 04.09.13 18:18

jeanmonroe wrote:
PeterMac wrote:They also used the expression "When IT happened", "being there when IT happened"

It is surely an isolated event, a fall, in injury, a smack, or a death.
An incident rather than a continuing sequence of entering, sedating, selecting, picking up, turning round, exiting, marching round the streets . . .

Would it be normal - even in their McScottish mangled use of the language - do use the words "IT happened" for that ?

Would you, for example, use 'IT' to describe a continuing event like the check on the children ?
"The last time I did IT was at 9:04" doesn't sound right, to me.
And Rachel Oldfield did say 'they couldn't have done IT' and ' they didn't do IT'

She never did say what the IT was, that the McCanns 'couldn't have done and didn't do'!

You would think IT applies more accurately to an accident rather than an incident.
An abduction is an incident where time is not a known factor you can't pin point the time, so using IT or AT THAT TIME as a point of time reference when you wished to be there is weirdly bizarre.
Whereas in accident scenario - an injury, a death - the victim would remain in situ for the duration of time it takes for help to arrive.

by comperedna 04.09.13 18:30

I would like to think SY had also thought along these lines, whatever their supposed brief. Surely some of them, most of them, know how many beans make five linguistically. All circumstantial, of course, but comments like that 'it', and the main players' behaviour after 'it' happened are highly significant in the book of anyone with a few of Poirot's 'little grey cells' to rub together.

If SY do not come up with a live 10 year old; a body which can be proved to be hers; or a totally convincing explanation of what happened to it (sufficient to convince the majority of people who have thought long and hard about this case) they will have FAILED UTTERLY; will have been made to look ridiculous; and what is more they will have been partty to the waste of a HUGE amount of taxpayers' money which could have been spent on seeking out and returning to their legal guardians lots of other children abducted by foreign parents, for instance.

by Guest 04.09.13 19:54

russiandoll wrote:I am convinced that IT was a short sharp incident, leaving a mess to be cleaned up.

Just as would be the case if a can of beans had fallen off a shelf.

The linguist in me keeps zooming on the language used in the book so sorry for harping on. This is what I would highlight in the most fluorescent colour.
[...].

***
Have you read Arthur Dreyfus' book "Belle Famille"? They're called McCands, they're French and holidaying in Italy, they loose their "son" Madec ... and Maman has thrown the body into the ocean, after Madec fell of a chair, trying to get to his forbidden toy on a high shelf, whilst holding a kitchen knife ...

by Nereid 04.09.13 23:41

Châtelaine wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I am convinced that IT was a short sharp incident, leaving a mess to be cleaned up.

Just as would be the case if a can of beans had fallen off a shelf.

The linguist in me keeps zooming on the language used in the book so sorry for harping on. This is what I would highlight in the most fluorescent colour.
[...].
***
Have you read Arthur Dreyfus' book "Belle Famille"? They're called McCands, they're French and holidaying in Italy, they loose their "son" Madec ... and Maman has thrown the body into the ocean, after Madec fell of a chair, trying to get to his forbidden toy on a high shelf, whilst holding a kitchen knife ...

Wow! Just googled the author. Wonder what inspired him to write such a book.

by Guest 04.09.13 23:50

Nereid wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I am convinced that IT was a short sharp incident, leaving a mess to be cleaned up.

Just as would be the case if a can of beans had fallen off a shelf.

The linguist in me keeps zooming on the language used in the book so sorry for harping on. This is what I would highlight in the most fluorescent colour.
[...].
***
Have you read Arthur Dreyfus' book "Belle Famille"? They're called McCands, they're French and holidaying in Italy, they loose their "son" Madec ... and Maman has thrown the body into the ocean, after Madec fell of a chair, trying to get to his forbidden toy on a high shelf, whilst holding a kitchen knife ...
Wow! Just googled the author. Wonder what inspired him to write such a book.

***
Well, that's obvious, isn't it?
Apart from that it is very, very well written and already got him a prestigious award.

Log in for more topics