timeline

by Guest 22.10.13 18:40

I have been wondering whether the timelines written on the sticker book covers had been done sometime prior to the evening of the 3rd. And they had been written as a script for all involved to act out.
Or at least the first one before, and the second one after the event. Given the differences between them.

Is there a thread on this? I can't see one

by Okeydokey 22.10.13 18:45

lj wrote:Who asked for the falling off the boat :

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

Rachel Oldfields 2nd rogatory:
00.50.33
1578
“Following day”.
Reply
“Erm so I think we probably talked about that a bit and otherwise you know, just general, probably that the weather had been a bit better that day and (inaudible) remember when the rest of us were there, we talked about Matt falling off the boat and Russell rescuing him and you know, it was actually quite a dramatic story and we were like well you know, that will be the talk of the holiday, the story of the holiday, erm so yeah that was kind of discussed at length cos Russell felt quite a hero and er, er I think he done quite well actually to get back and rescue Matt, erm and I don’t know what else we talked about, just, no I mean nothing specific really just general chit chat”.

Thanks Ij. Has anyone started a thread on this?

by Clairelo 22.10.13 18:47

Three things,, These are not the most important things, but they are things which niggle at me.

Jane Tanner: expressed that she neither knew Gerry well or even particularly liked him.   This has always made me wonder if she was attempting to provide a cover for her own partner Russell, rather than for Gerry.    This in turn made me wonder why she felt she needed to try to provide a cover for Russell.

The Group:   three couples took their children off to the beach for the afternoon.   They chose to not even mention this outing to the McCann's nor to invite them along.    This appears to have been either a deliberate and rude snub, or an attempt to provide the McCann's with space for some reason.    I remain very curious about the rational for the exclusion of the McCann's.


David Payne:   David's comment that they 'expected something to happen, but not this,'  continues to bother me.   I do not expect that David was referring to mundane daily events.    It sounds as if he and the others had been expecting something major to occur.   So what was that?   Did they expect a major blow up between Gerry and Kate or did they have knowledge of some other covert, or sinister event.   I would be curious to hear what they had all been speculating would happen.

IMO

by Guest 22.10.13 18:51

Clairelo wrote:Three things,, These are not the most important things, but they are things which niggle at me.

Jane Tanner: expressed that she neither knew Gerry well or even particularly liked him.   This has always made me wonder if she was attempting to provide a cover for her own partner Russell, rather than for Gerry.    This in turn made me wonder why she felt she needed to try to provide a cover for Russell.

The Group:   three couples took their children off to the beach for the afternoon.   They chose to not even mention this outing to the McCann's nor to invite them along.    This appears to have been either a deliberate and rude snub, or an attempt to provide the McCann's with space for some reason.    I remain very curious about the rational for the exclusion of the McCann's.


David Payne: David's comment that they 'expected something to happen, but not this,' continues to bother me. I do not expect that David was referring to mundane daily events.    It sounds as if he and the others had been expecting something major to occur.   So what was that?   Did they expect a major blow up between Gerry and Kate or did they have knowledge of some other covert, or sinister event.   I would be curious to hear what they had all been speculating would happen.

IMO

Welcome Clairelo, what DP was referring to was them (the McCanns) being made Arguidos.

by Guest 22.10.13 18:51

I can answer the last part, Clairelo.

David Payne was referring to the McCanns being made arguidos in September 2007.

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

by Guest 22.10.13 18:53

Okeydokey wrote:
lj wrote:Who asked for the falling off the boat :

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

Rachel Oldfields 2nd rogatory:
00.50.33
1578
“Following day”.
Reply
“Erm so I think we probably talked about that a bit and otherwise you know, just general, probably that the weather had been a bit better that day and (inaudible) remember when the rest of us were there, we talked about Matt falling off the boat and Russell rescuing him and you know, it was actually quite a dramatic story and we were like well you know, that will be the talk of the holiday, the story of the holiday, erm so yeah that was kind of discussed at length cos Russell felt quite a hero and er, er I think he done quite well actually to get back and rescue Matt, erm and I don’t know what else we talked about, just, no I mean nothing specific really just general chit chat”.
Thanks Ij. Has anyone started a thread on this?

Okeydokey, if you put Rachel Oldfield in the search bar at the top right of this forum, you will find many threads on this.

by Guest 22.10.13 18:55

dantezebu wrote:I have been wondering whether the timelines written on the sticker book covers had been done sometime prior to the evening of the 3rd. And they had been written as a script for all involved to act out.
Or at least the first one before, and the second one after the event. Given the differences between them.

Is there a thread on this? I can't see one

Hi, just type in sticker in search bar right hand side of forum, you will find 4 topics on the subject. If you wish to post then one of those may be useful.

by lj 22.10.13 19:31

juliet wrote:It does seem unusual to have four sets of parents so uncaring of their children. Also unusual for all four sets of parents to want to dine at the Tapas night after night. Same old menu, same old faces...they were all fairly sophisticated people and I would have thought they'd be bored silly after two nights.

sophisticated????

It seems their education has not had any effect on their character other than giving them a sense of entitlement and infallibility (quote it's not as if we did something wrong unquote).

Well I guess everyone knows by now in which corner I place the pathetic parents and at least Rachel O.

by RIPM 22.10.13 19:35

It is my opinion very little if any checking ever took place and if it did what use was it?

Kate herself many times has said and wrote in her book that if the infamous bedroom door had not been further ajar than it was left, she would have turned around and left without entering the bedroom, so as a person of such regular habits, this would have been the same on the previous nights.

As the door did not move on previous nights, she would never have gone into the room and seen her children, so why bother going?

It would strongly suggest checking never happened. They never even looked in after putting them down at 7.30 that night. Just cleared off to the Tapas as usual at 8.30.

The Oldfields and Tanner/O brien had sick puking very young children and left then to look after themselves, as the parents priority was "fine dining" Would any reasonable person really think this was responsible parenting?

by Jauna Loca 22.10.13 19:45

Something that was a real [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]moment for me was Mrs Webster's statement (not sure if it was to PJ or in England) where she said she hadn't left
the table when KM came screaming down the path that Maddie had been taken because she thought it was "just another of their games" or words to
that effect.
Makes you wonder what they'd gotten up to for the rest of the week if she saw this as nothing out of the ordinary!

by Guest 22.10.13 20:05

RIPM wrote: [...] Would any reasonable person really think this was responsible parenting?

***
The word "responsible" parenting was very important and used by GM straight from the beginning [whereas one would think he'd have other things to think about].
I've been looking up some law and the definition "responsible" is indeed extremely important in a case of negligence ...

by aniandr 22.10.13 20:16

The video inside the church in pdl where she seems to totally fall apart. That video just seemed the only time where i see her loose it so to speak. She always seems very controlled, but not in that video. I just dont get why there? She seems less controlled than when she appeal for her lost child. I just dont get it. What makes that moment more special than any other.

by Guest 22.10.13 20:25

aniandr wrote:The video inside the church in pdl where she seems to totally fall apart. That video just seemed the only time where i see her loose it so to speak. She always seems very controlled, but not in that video. I just dont get why there? She seems less controlled than when she appeal for her lost child. I just dont get it. What makes that moment more special than any other.

***
Iniandr, I still reading behind ... Is there a link to this video?

by aniandr 22.10.13 20:35

Under the topic

Prayers for Madeleine at Mother's Day service, 06 May 2007

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

by soundworks 22.10.13 20:37

aniandr wrote:The video inside the church in pdl where she seems to totally fall apart. That video just seemed the only time where i see her loose it so to speak. She always seems very controlled, but not in that video. I just dont get why there? She seems less controlled than when she appeal for her lost child. I just dont get it. What makes that moment more special than any other.

maybe the body was hidden here?

by aniandr 22.10.13 20:59

I have no idear of madeleines whereabouts :-)

But i just dont get the video. No doubt kate is truly upset. But the day befor ore so she is out running. The day after in church. Its the overall picture. I dont get it. I often wonder about that video

by aniandr 22.10.13 21:09

The video befor that outside the church "shes lovely" is that an english thing saying like that. Of all words in the world...."shes lovely". It just sounds like something a mother in law would say about her daughter in law ore something. "Shes lovely"....she could just as well have said "shes a darling" ore "shes handsome" which would be realy odd to ore is it just me?

by lj 22.10.13 22:59

Strange isn't it? Kate knows she has to say something that makes clear she loves her. This is the word she comes up with. My guess it's in line with the "almost perfect" and the "perfect g**"

by Okeydokey 22.10.13 23:07

Jauna Loca wrote:Something that was a real [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]moment for me was Mrs Webster's statement (not sure if it was to PJ or in England) where she said she hadn't left
the table when KM came screaming down the path that Maddie had been taken because she thought it was "just another of their games" or words to
that effect.
Makes you wonder what they'd gotten up to for the rest of the week if she saw this as nothing out of the ordinary!

Yep, that was an odd one!

by Okeydokey 22.10.13 23:14

Clairelo wrote:Three things,, These are not the most important things, but they are things which niggle at me.

Jane Tanner: expressed that she neither knew Gerry well or even particularly liked him.   This has always made me wonder if she was attempting to provide a cover for her own partner Russell, rather than for Gerry.    This in turn made me wonder why she felt she needed to try to provide a cover for Russell.

The Group:   three couples took their children off to the beach for the afternoon.   They chose to not even mention this outing to the McCann's nor to invite them along.    This appears to have been either a deliberate and rude snub, or an attempt to provide the McCann's with space for some reason.    I remain very curious about the rational for the exclusion of the McCann's.


David Payne:   David's comment that they 'expected something to happen, but not this,'  continues to bother me.   I do not expect that David was referring to mundane daily events.    It sounds as if he and the others had been expecting something major to occur.   So what was that?   Did they expect a major blow up between Gerry and Kate or did they have knowledge of some other covert, or sinister event.   I would be curious to hear what they had all been speculating would happen.

IMO

Wasn;t the Payne comment about the media storm that came once the disappearance hit the news?

by Guest 22.10.13 23:16

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I can answer the last part, Clairelo.

David Payne was referring to the McCanns being made arguidos in September 2007.

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

Okeydokey: for your attention.

by Nereid 22.10.13 23:22

Didn't two of the tapas men do an internet search on paedophiles in Europe in the days before the disappearance?

by View-from-Ireland 22.10.13 23:45

aniandr wrote:Under the topic
Prayers for Madeleine at Mother's Day service, 06 May 2007

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

Has the video been removed? It isn't displaying for me.