Re: Things TM have said nonchalantly - for what purpose?

by Guest 26.01.14 12:21

Try This Portia.

Sorry I sent wrong link

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

Its very neat the end of the page under the blue SNIP

by Guest 26.01.14 12:25

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

Try This Portia. I get error message or moved message and sometimes it WORKS!

Tnx!

by Doug D 26.01.14 13:13

Some of the above mentioned ‘darkened room’ references are to the Oldfield’s room where Grace slept, but we will need to go back to his full statements to see whether the darkness confusion between different apartments and bedrooms is deliberate or whether it's just the way the snippets have created a confusing context.

5A’s darkened room is in the bewk, P.48

‘On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week. This early in the season, the nights were not that warm, there was no need to open a window and we reasoned that having the shutters down and the curtains drawn would keep it cool during the day. Although it meant the room was very dark, the children weren’t going to be in there in the daytime, and at night we always left the door ajar to let in a little light’

by Guest 26.01.14 13:29

Thanks for that, DougD, so the issues of dark and temperature-controlled rooms for kids' rest appear in Kate's bewk aswell, do they? So they didn't open the shutters because they were keeping dark rooms where the temperature had to be controlled so that kids could sleep. Oh yes and it was cold...This seems to me to just be emphasising that those shutters were never opened, no never, not in a million years, honest. Could someone be, methinks, protest(eth)ing too much? Just asking.

by Guest 26.01.14 15:25

Doug D wrote:Some of the above mentioned ‘darkened room’ references are to the Oldfield’s room where Grace slept, but we will need to go back to his full statements to see whether the darkness confusion between different apartments and bedrooms is deliberate or whether it's just the way the snippets have created a confusing context.

5A’s darkened room is in the bewk, P.48

‘On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week. This early in the season, the nights were not that warm, there was no need to open a window and we reasoned that having the shutters down and the curtains drawn would keep it cool during the day. Although it meant the room was very dark, the children weren’t going to be in there in the daytime, and at night we always left the door ajar to let in a little light’

Why close shutters during the day at all?

That would decommission half of the apartments' already cramped living/playing space, as the children -one presumes- would hesitate or refuse to enter these darkened places.

THE shutters on THE windows, plural, implying all shutters on all windows.

And on top of that all curtains drawn?

Pull the other one(s), my Dear!

On the other hand, if you intended to use the apartment for 'nefarious activities' which couldn't stand the light of day, keeping the place shuttered down 24/7 precisely for that, it saved you the trouble of ostentatiously closing shutters and drawing curtains every time one or more of the participants entered the oh-so-conveniently situated corner apartment 5A

by worriedmum 26.01.14 15:30

MILLIE wrote:Thanks for that, DougD, so the issues of dark and temperature-controlled rooms for kids' rest appear in Kate's bewk aswell, do they? So they didn't open the shutters because they were keeping dark rooms where the temperature had to be controlled so that kids could sleep. Oh yes and it was cold...This seems to me to just be emphasising that those shutters were never opened, no never, not in a million years, honest. Could someone be, methinks, protest(eth)ing too much? Just asking.

It seems surprising to me that Kate didn't notice the draught/light from the street from the jemmied shutters/open windows immediately. After all, IIRC she does say she listened to the children and thought 'all was well' but then the door 'dramatically slammed'?

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

I would like to say that my first thought would have been

'WHY HAS THE DOOR JUST SLAMMED SHUT?'- FOLLOWED BY 'WHY IS IS THE WINDOW OPEN/WHY IS IT SO COLD?'

THINK ABOUT IT LOGICALLY..

by **PeterMac** 26.01.14 16:28

worriedmum wrote:
MILLIE wrote:Thanks for that, DougD, so the issues of dark and temperature-controlled rooms for kids' rest appear in Kate's bewk aswell, do they? So they didn't open the shutters because they were keeping dark rooms where the temperature had to be controlled so that kids could sleep. Oh yes and it was cold...This seems to me to just be emphasising that those shutters were never opened, no never, not in a million years, honest. Could someone be, methinks, protest(eth)ing too much? Just asking.
It seems surprising to me that Kate didn't notice the draught/light from the street from the jemmied shutters/open windows immediately. After all, IIRC she does say she listened to the children and thought 'all was well' but then the door 'dramatically slammed'?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I would like to say that my first thought would have been
'WHY HAS THE DOOR JUST SLAMMED SHUT?'- FOLLOWED BY 'WHY IS IS THE WINDOW OPEN/WHY IS IT SO COLD?'

THINK ABOUT IT LOGICALLY..

And more than that - -
Kate is not going to bother looking in, merely to adjust the door to some pre-arranged exact position. (36 degrees of arc, or 0.85 radians, or whatever)
THEN the door slams.
THEN she opens it and looks in and finds Madeleine missing
THEN she hurtles round the house looking in cupboards
THEN she goes back into the bedroom and the curtains 'Wheesh" up
BUT THE DOOR DOES NOT SLAM

So we have two sudden draughts, one strong enough to slam the door, against the pressure of an adults hand and arm,
and a second one strong enough to "wheesh" the curtains which are trapped down between the bed and the wall, but which - strangely is not strong enough the slam the door for a second time . .
And all this on a night which was as close to flat calm as you can get.

Does anyone actually believe this nonsense ?
Particularly when in her police statements she said clearly and signed as true, that the curtains were wide OPEN.

by worriedmum 26.01.14 16:55

PeterMac writes

''a second one strong enough to "wheesh" the curtains which are trapped down between the bed and the wall, but which strangely is not strong enough the slam the door for a second time

- . .
And all this on a night which was as close to flat calm as you can get.''

Great point PM.

by Guest 26.01.14 17:19

You remind me of half-blind Maman again, PeterM, when I was playing this first edition of the wooshing curtains [Panorama? Oprah Winfrey] on my computer, she asked: "Who's that bad actress talking?" and I had to say: "That's Kate, Maman" ...

by Rasputin 26.01.14 17:24

Just a thought , does anybody know if the bedroom had an air conditioning unit ? a small room with a unit could be ' chilled ' considerably .

by canada12 26.01.14 21:00

If a suspect has given two or more statements to the police, and they are all contradictory, but are all signed as "true", then obviously the suspect is lying in one or more of the statements.

If this should go to court, how would the suspect's defense team defend this?

By stating to the judge and jury that obviously the suspect was lying in one or more of the cases, but it's impossible to know which, and therefore the jury cannot possibly arrive at a verdict because of the confusion.

This is what SY are up against in their investigation, and why they have to pick out the threads of the confusion, and make sure they have a watertight case before they move in to make arrests.

by Mirage 26.01.14 21:47

canada12 wrote:If a suspect has given two or more statements to the police, and they are all contradictory, but are all signed as "true", then obviously the suspect is lying in one or more of the statements.

If this should go to court, how would the suspect's defense team defend this?

By stating to the judge and jury that obviously the suspect was lying in one or more of the cases, but it's impossible to know which, and therefore the jury cannot possibly arrive at a verdict because of the confusion.

This is what SY are up against in their investigation, and why they have to pick out the threads of the confusion, and make sure they have a watertight case before they move in to make arrests.

They could be done for wasting police time and perverting the course of justice I should imagine. If you sign 3 conflicting statements as true to the best of your knowledge and they are self evidently a pack of lies I should have thought the case could get to court more quickly and prosecution would make mincemeat of them.

Then there's them dogs that don't lie just to clinch it.

by **tigger** 27.01.14 5:39

worriedmum wrote:PeterMac writes

''a second one strong enough to "wheesh" the curtains which are trapped down between the bed and the wall, but which strangely is not strong enough the slam the door for a second time

- . .
And all this on a night which was as close to flat calm as you can get.''

Great point PM.

It would be good to know when this dramatic 'lead in' was first aired. My betting is Jon Corner, who fancies himself as a film maker.
It's a classic device to raise tension which they teach in ~~film school~~ media studies.

Was the first performance of this scene in that weird film he made where Kate looks and talks as if she's on something?
She was word-perfect in that piece of information every time, the gestures too are supposed to add to the drama.

by Seek truth 27.01.14 6:28

"
PM writes:

''a second one strong enough to "wheesh" the curtains which are trapped down between the bed and the wall, but which strangely is not strong enough the slam the door for a second time"

And so the door had to close at the PRECISE moment she was there!

How long was she at the door?
The door must have been slamming many times with all that wind then before she arrived. What Strong wind portugal had in May!

by Briohazard 27.01.14 7:25

Seek truth wrote:"
PM writes:

''a second one strong enough to "wheesh" the curtains which are trapped down between the bed and the wall, but which strangely is not strong enough the slam the door for a second time"

And so the door had to close at the PRECISE moment she was there!

How long was she at the door?
The door must have been slamming many times with all that wind then before she arrived. What Strong wind portugal had in May!

Not to mention the wind was SO STRONG, initially, it literally sucked the door OPEN WIDE before Kate got in there.. but AFTER Gerry had closed it over because it was OPEN on his check, after it was closed over before they went out.

This door certainly defies logic... doesn't it!

by Guest 27.01.14 7:57

Briohazard wrote:
Seek truth wrote:"
PM writes:

''a second one strong enough to "wheesh" the curtains which are trapped down between the bed and the wall, but which strangely is not strong enough the slam the door for a second time"

And so the door had to close at the PRECISE moment she was there!

How long was she at the door?
The door must have been slamming many times with all that wind then before she arrived. What Strong wind portugal had in May!
Not to mention the wind was SO STRONG, initially, it literally sucked the door OPEN WIDE before Kate got in there.. but AFTER Gerry had closed it over because it was OPEN on his check, after it was closed over before they went out.

This door certainly defies logic... doesn't it!

The whole affair does

That's precisely why we're all here; we want to see where the madness will lead us a/o whether there is a system in this madness (thank you, Bard)

by Guest 27.01.14 7:58

canada12 wrote:If a suspect has given two or more statements to the police, and they are all contradictory, but are all signed as "true", then obviously the suspect is lying in one or more of the statements.

If this should go to court, how would the suspect's defense team defend this?

By stating to the judge and jury that obviously the suspect was lying in one or more of the cases, but it's impossible to know which, and therefore the jury cannot possibly arrive at a verdict because of the confusion.

This is what SY are up against in their investigation, and why they have to pick out the threads of the confusion, and make sure they have a watertight case before they move in to make arrests.

by Briohazard 28.01.14 12:00

Penfold wrote:I don't think the McCs ever say anything 'nonchalantly'. Their comments, in my opinion, are to explain or retro-fit anything that 'might or might not be found' . Copyright Clarence!

1 - to prove M was alive that morning? Or to plant the idea that an abduction rehearsal had happened.
2 - supposedly to explain dogs' findings, although we know that the cadaver dogs don't alert to food remains.
3 - to explain any blood traces found on KM's pants/trainers?
4 - who knows what stain she was trying to explain,
5 - in case they were spotted going into another apartment in PdL?

But then I'm a cynical old woman who's been reading this sort of tripe for over 6 years now.

In my opinion #4 is to explain a reason for washing in general that day. What day was that?