Re: CW was actually very clever I think

by sallypelt 29.11.13 18:12

jeanmonroe wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Have the Twitter weirdos had anything to say about it?
Nope.

~~Kate~~ TrulyJudas is getting her nails done!

No 'turning stones' for those manicured hands.

Having her nails done? Don't believe the liar. It never leaves the computer. It has tweeted more than SIX HUNDRED TWEETS in two days. It has no fingers left to have any nails.

by Mikey 29.11.13 18:18

Portia wrote:
Which infers the child is dead, and they know it

What puzzles me a lot, continually, is how can they possibly resolve the libel case when there is so clearly a great degree of suspicion that the pair are in some way implicit in the disappearance?

One obvious outcome (perhaps preferable) given the current state of play, is to find for the defendant. The trouble is, does this not open the door wide for a counter claim? And then who pays for all the costs? The fund... the public?

This leaves only one other possibility, if it exists (or something similar), which is to delay it indefinitely?

Between Portuguese law, and British, I have no idea, but surely the fact that there is an active case must have an impact on being able to serve fair justice to a Libel suit?

by Cristobell 29.11.13 18:28

I really don't know how they are going to get past suppressing the Smith sighting for five years, and wonder if this will be mentioned in the summing up of the Defence. Obviously withholding vital information from the public must have been hugely damaging to the Search, far more than so than Goncalo's book.

They haven't proved their case thus far. They are claiming damages for depression and stress they suffered as a result of Goncalo Amaral's book. They were not able to produce a single qualified psychologist to support their individual claims. The claims that the twins may come across GA's book in the future were nothing compared to the sensational and shocking headlines in the UK as a result of their parents' demands for financial compensation and refusal to have the case hear in camera. Who exactly is harming the twins' wellbeing?

by Guest 29.11.13 18:32

I think that we can rule out Kate as being that lovely creature on Twitter - unless there was a break last night when Crimewatch was on!

by Mikey 29.11.13 18:49

Cristobell wrote:I really don't know how they are going to get past suppressing the Smith sighting for five years, and wonder if this will be mentioned in the summing up of the Defence. Obviously withholding vital information from the public must have been hugely damaging to the Search, far more than so than Goncalo's book.

They haven't proved their case thus far. They are claiming damages for depression and stress they suffered as a result of Goncalo Amaral's book. They were not able to produce a single qualified psychologist to support their individual claims. The claims that the twins may come across GA's book in the future were nothing compared to the sensational and shocking headlines in the UK as a result of their parents' demands for financial compensation and refusal to have the case hear in camera. Who exactly is harming the twins' wellbeing?

Hello Cristobell. It is precisely this, if they themselves have brought much of this upon themselves, not simply by the possibility of being complicit in a crime, but by the deliberate actions to deceive, withhold information, etc, how can a judge rule in their favour?

by Mikey 29.11.13 19:00

Back on topic of CW: I wonder, how many of the purported 3 to 3.5 k calls were from people telling them it was the parents?

(Just curious... if there were any such calls)

by ultimaThule 29.11.13 19:01

Humanist wrote:A lot of compassion arises for me now what Kate must be enduring.
A lot.
She never would have chosen this for herself.

She looks awful and I say that in a heartfelt way. Her beauty is gone.
Everyone is commenting on it.

I can see a legal claim from defense to prosecutor to just look at her
and see that she has suffered enough. It looks it.

And then I think everything in this case has been orchestrated.
Has her twisted face also being orchestrated. If she was sleeping three weeks
after her daughter was missing and looking as beautiful and radiant as a rose
and indeed only very recently has she that haunted concentration camp look.
Botox will paralyse muscles to make a face more beautiful
and also more tortured.

What I hate most about Madeleine's disappearance is it has really eroded a lot of trust.

You must indeed be a humanist of the most noble kind because I cannot find it within me to summon up one iota of compassion for this woman.

It may be that she is beginning to resemble the equivalent of Dorian Gray's hidden portrait, rather than the ever youthful visage he was able to present to the world due to his Faustian pact with the devil, but to my mind KM's face is merely showing evidence of certain physical and mental disorders I've long suspected she is afflicted by.

Of course it could be that being married to one such as her chosen spouse has also taken its toll on her once radiant looks. Childhood and other experiences can impact on an adult's physical appearance, and I have no doubt this couple are the product of dysfunctional families. Nevertheless, KM at least was raised to tell right from wrong and there can be no excuse for her failure to do right by her first-born child.

I agree that 'She never would have chosen this for herself'. However, my interpretation of this statement is that her choice did not extend to the possibility that her lies would be found out and that she would lose all credibility and come to be reviled in her local community as well as in wider society.

It's inconceivable that KM was unaware of the saying 'the truth will out' before she embarked on an immense deception intended to save her skin, and it seems almost poetic justice that her skin appears to be undergoing a transformation as the full extent of her lies have been, and continue to be, revealed in an appropriately excoriating manner.

Such compassion as I have in this matter is exclusively reserved for a delightful little 3 year old girl who was sacrificed on the altar of her parents' greed. Regardless of what justice is meted out to them in the here and now, their callous indifference to her welfare and wellbeing, in life as well as in death, is something for which they will ultimately be more properly held to account by their Catholic god who may, or who may not be, more merciful than I can be towards this excessively selfish, self-obsessed, self-absorbed, self-centred, and demonically deceitful pair.

by chillyheat 29.11.13 19:17

Mikey wrote:Back on topic of CW: I wonder, how many of the purported 3 to 3.5 k calls were from people telling them it was the parents?

(Just curious... if there were any such calls)

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

It looks worse if they read the local...... big grin

by ultimaThule 29.11.13 19:29

While we may guess at who the majority of those calls named as being the e-fit suspect, who's to know whether one or more of them contained valuable information from invdividuals who were in Luz on the night of 3 May 2007 and it's highly unlikely AR will have revealed any of the content of those calls to the McCanns.
No wonder they're beginning to look a tad overwhelmed by the success of their Crimewatch appeal big grin

by Mikey 29.11.13 19:34

ChillyHeat wrote:
Mikey wrote:Back on topic of CW: I wonder, how many of the purported 3 to 3.5 k calls were from people telling them it was the parents?

(Just curious... if there were any such calls)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It looks worse if they read the local......

Have to admit... reading that brought a smile to my face too. Could be more than 50%... by a fair margin. Curiously, it also made me ponder... is there anyone outside of the UK that doesn't have at least some doubts?

by Guest 29.11.13 19:47

Mickey, a lot of us are outside the UK ...

by Mikey 29.11.13 20:00

Châtelaine wrote:Mickey, a lot of us are outside the UK ...

So I begin to gather high5

Probably (for me at least) one of the most difficult things to contemplate, is how anyone can so utterly believe in their innocence, as some seem to.

by Guest 29.11.13 20:31

Mikey wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:
Mikey wrote:Back on topic of CW: I wonder, how many of the purported 3 to 3.5 k calls were from people telling them it was the parents?

(Just curious... if there were any such calls)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It looks worse if they read the local......
Have to admit... reading that brought a smile to my face too. Could be more than 50%... by a fair margin. Curiously, it also made me ponder... is there anyone outside of the UK that doesn't have at least some doubts?

Outside the UK nobody believes the Mecs

Period

But then, who inside the UK does?

Statistics anyone?

by Mikey 29.11.13 20:44

Portia wrote:
Mikey wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:
Mikey wrote:Back on topic of CW: I wonder, how many of the purported 3 to 3.5 k calls were from people telling them it was the parents?

(Just curious... if there were any such calls)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It looks worse if they read the local......
Have to admit... reading that brought a smile to my face too. Could be more than 50%... by a fair margin. Curiously, it also made me ponder... is there anyone outside of the UK that doesn't have at least some doubts?
Outside the UK nobody believes the Mecs

Period

But then, who inside the UK does?

Statistics anyone?

Statistically, I would count myself as inside, being British (expat), however when visiting home, and the few I have spoken to, none has ever mentioned being supportive, most were reserved, a few more than very doubtful (me included).

by mysterion 29.11.13 20:45

Would it be libelous to conduct an opinion poll on this?

by Irisheyes 29.11.13 20:54

In my experience most people believe what the media have been feeding them here in ireland. I have noticed suspicion openly on various fora but I have yet to meet somebody who thinks they are involved. Very frustrating.

by Mikey 29.11.13 21:01

mysterion wrote:Would it be libelous to conduct an opinion poll on this?

Would it? I don't mind voting... but it could be awkward for the site? Trouble is of course, that we would not have a wide enough field/base upon which to give a balanced result.

by ultimaThule 29.11.13 21:05

mysterion wrote:Would it be libelous to conduct an opinion poll on this?

No more libellous than the yougov poll which was conducted back in September 2007: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but I would caution against holding another poll now otherwise their defence may be able claim there was no prospect of a fair trial. winkwink

by Mikey 29.11.13 21:07

Irisheyes wrote:In my experience most people believe what the media have been feeding them here in ireland. I have noticed suspicion openly on various fora but I have yet to meet somebody who thinks they are involved. Very frustrating.

Hello Irish smilie

That must be frustrating indeed. Try to broaden your horizon, if possible... people are out there that have the ability to question what they hear or read... we know the Irish are not all as they are purported to be winkwink

by Mikey 29.11.13 21:09

ultimaThule wrote:
mysterion wrote:Would it be libelous to conduct an opinion poll on this?
No more libellous than the yougov poll which was conducted back in September 2007: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but I would caution against holding another poll now otherwise their defence may be able claim there was no prospect of a fair trial.

Wow, if it was only 20% then... it has to be lower now, probably much lower?

by joti26 29.11.13 21:31

ITV local news also commented this evening in a similar low key way as CW did last night (I did blink and nearly miss the CW 'update'), stating there were 3,000 calls but added several were from holiday makers who had information. Now this I find absolutely absurd, six years on after all the appeals, offers of rewards etc over the years, and all of a sudden these holiday makers remember something! Come off it! I also noted no mention of abduction but used the term 'what happened to missing Madeleine'. This all leaves me even more baffled than ever and my head hurts even more! wtf

by ultimaThule 29.11.13 21:57

joti26 wrote:ITV local news also commented this evening in a similar low key way as CW did last night (I did blink and nearly miss the CW 'update'), stating there were 3,000 calls but added several were from holiday makers who had information. Now this I find absolutely absurd, six years on after all the appeals, offers of rewards etc over the years, and all of a sudden these holiday makers remember something! Come off it! I also noted no mention of abduction but used the term 'what happened to missing Madeleine'. This all leaves me even more baffled than ever and my head hurts even more!

Given that attention was previously focused on c9.15 as being the time JT saw a man carrying a child wearing pyjamas and the Smith sighting was largely ignored by the media, I don't find it too surprising that some holidaymakers and/or others who were in Luz on the night in question may have come forward more than 6 years after the event in response to an appeal relating to a man seen carrying a child at 10pm.

If the route Smithman travelled was from the Ocean Club Apartments to a destination as yet unknown it would be surprising if others hadn't observed him en route, or on what may have been his return journey to the apartments in order to deflect suspicion by mingling with the crowd or to derive enjoyment from returning to the scene of the crime as some offenders tend to do.

by Guest 29.11.13 22:01

Right! Perhaps people seeing a man carrying a child at approx. 10pm OR just a man walking the other direction a bit later ... Nothing suspicious at the time, but with new revelations [BIG on t.v.] worthwhile remembering and hopefully reporting now ...

by Irisheyes 29.11.13 22:03

A

Mikey wrote:
Irisheyes wrote:In my experience most people believe what the media have been feeding them here in ireland. I have noticed suspicion openly on various fora but I have yet to meet somebody who thinks they are involved. Very frustrating.
Hello Irish That must be frustrating indeed. Try to broaden your horizon, if possible... people are out there that have the ability to question what they hear or read... we know the Irish are not all as they are purported to be

Thanks for the advice.

by View-from-Ireland 29.11.13 22:15

Irisheyes wrote:A
Mikey wrote:
Irisheyes wrote:In my experience most people believe what the media have been feeding them here in ireland. I have noticed suspicion openly on various fora but I have yet to meet somebody who thinks they are involved. Very frustrating.
Hello Irish That must be frustrating indeed. Try to broaden your horizon, if possible... people are out there that have the ability to question what they hear or read... we know the Irish are not all as they are purported to be
Thanks for the advice.

I live in the Dublin area and most that I know are dead suspicious of the parents...I don't think they are that well liked here to be honest.

by ultimaThule 29.11.13 22:29

Châtelaine wrote:Right! Perhaps people seeing a man carrying a child at approx. 10pm OR just a man walking the other direction a bit later ... Nothing suspicious at the time, but with new revelations [BIG on t.v.] worthwhile remembering and hopefully reporting now ...

If you or I had been in Luz around the time now in question, no doubt we would be scouring our memories in case we had seen something that didn't seem relevant back then but can now be viewed in a different light, Chatelaine.

Someone, or someones, may have seen the back of a man carrying a child through the streets c10pm or may, indeed, have witnessed a lone man walking quickly or even sprinting as if in hurry to get wherever he was going - in the laid back town that is Luz on and off season such speed would be worthy of note. In addition, the probable route was overlooked by apartments occupied by those who may have glanced out of their windows at an opportune moment and failed to realise significance of what they'd seen until the recent well-publicised Crimewatch appeal.

In cases where there is no body, it can be that the accumulation of circumstantial evidence eventually tips the scale into the probability of a successful prosecution.

by **tigger** 30.11.13 6:56

joti26 wrote:ITV local news also commented this evening in a similar low key way as CW did last night (I did blink and nearly miss the CW 'update'), stating there were 3,000 calls but added several were from holiday makers who had information. Now this I find absolutely absurd, six years on after all the appeals, offers of rewards etc over the years, and all of a sudden these holiday makers remember something! Come off it! I also noted no mention of abduction but used the term 'what happened to missing Madeleine'. This all leaves me even more baffled than ever and my head hurts even more!

I feel this is more a case of 'assisted memory' . PdL was hardly busy so early in the season, Rachel M said that the area was very quiet and the Moyes also stress the quiet evening. So hardly any people walking the streets.
At 10.00 pm most would be either in a bar or at home. It was a cold night, cold enough to wear a fleece.

As to the Smiths, if I heard of a missing child , I'd assume she'd been taken away in a car, the man they saw they felt was not a tourist, perhaps because he did not answer? At the time I don't think the time of abduction and description of eggman was widely known.
When exactly did eggman go public?

by oakeso 30.11.13 7:52

It was mentioned in the papers on 27/05/07 and the artists impression released on 25/10/07

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

I'm sure it's been mentioned a lot. If you can barely make out the floral pattern up close, how did JT notice in the yellow light in the distance?

by **PeterMac** 30.11.13 8:04

PJ bottoms WHITE - not pink as JT described
Sleeves Short - non existent.

cf. Smithman
Sleeves - LONG

by Greycatofoxford 30.11.13 8:18

I am still of the mind set that CW was extraordinarily well thought out, by a sophisticated team.
My experience has shown that little is random at this stage and we are invited to guess at sub text( which in fairness is all they can allow)
AR is shown outside MURDER Investigation ROOM..hint 1…..he was NOT live it was recorded and the recording could have been done in the studio and CW could have announced that " this was an interview recorded earlier in the studio( they did not on purpose) they wanted to give the impression of the MIT hard at work at 21.30 hours, to send a message to possible UK suspects of 24 hour intense work.
K & G were not invited to be asked their thoughts or feelings as has happened in the past, they were not once referred to.
Abduction was NEVER mentioned once, Tractor man was dismissed almost with a sneer by AR, he thanked the Public for response, a message that the clarion calls of last months CW were noted and helpful, no request was made for MORE help in identifying and one else( deliberate)
The response by AR regarding PJ was meant to show solidarity.
I have been the most critical in past months of SY and CW, however I have been part of many such TV productions here in the USA and I watched and re watched closely and still believe that the whole sub text was constructed to unsettle the Tapas guys and K & G etc and I think it WILL and SHALL