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

by Guest on 21.01.14 22:33

@MissesWillYa wrote:
I think it was to preempt questions or 1concerns about their behavior or activities - explaining things away so that they wouldn't seem suspect, or offering innocent explanations for things that could be taken in other ways. I think the tea stain is one of the most glaring examples of this. Why go to so much trouble to describe the discovery of the stain, the washing of it, the thought process while washing it, the hanging it to dry, if it was really just a simple food stain on the clothing of a three-year-old? The supposed dog-bite is another example like this, IMO. If true, it definitely would be notable for its strangeness, but why share it, except to explain bloodstains somewhere, or injuries on her person that others might question? So IMO, they are precautionary, but more specifically they seem preemptive, meant to shut questions down before they're even asked.

Another example would be the assertion that the children were sedated by the 'abductor'. Why mention sedation at all unless they had reason to believe evidence would emerge to indicate drugs were present?

This fascinating article written by the Mail in times when a more balanced approach to the reporting of the case was still permissible, refers to "toxicology tests" purportedly suggesting as much. Did such tests really take place? On samples from where?

http://www.pressmon.com/cgi-bin/press_view.cgi?id=123427

The article also refers to Kate's supposed propensity to hysteria and violence, witnessed by Mrs Fenn amongst others, as she coped with most of the parenting while 'absent' Gerry played sport and sunbathed. Such descriptions of her behaviour will no doubt have prompted many 'nonchalant' comments by the McCaans contrived to paint the opposite picture of a close and calm oasis of family contentment.

It's a long time since we've seen articles like this, but the McCanns were no doubt painting their rosy picture in a preemptive attempt to counterbalance such reports if and when they emerged, as they certainly did for a brief time.

(Sorry if this article has been linked to and commented on before, but it's the first time I've seen it. Bit of an eye-opener for me, like!)

by MissesWillYa on 21.01.14 23:11

Dee Coy, that's a pretty amazing article! I'm surprised it's still available to read online. I think this:

The reports also quoted witnesses who have given statements to police. Pamela Fenn, who was in an apartment above the family on May 3 – the night Madeleine disappeared – is quoted as saying she believed Mrs McCann sometimes became violent and "out of control" in the room below.

She claimed that "the little girl‘s screams calling for her daddy were very audible".

Источник: http://www.pressmon.com/cgi-bin/press_view.cgi?id=123427#ixzz2r4qZML6g

goes with the theme of this thread, in that KM took a lot of care to state that they'd never called her "Maddie" or "anything like that." I shudder to think what kind of treatment of Madeleine might have prompted her to spend 75 minutes crying for "Daddy," if that's really what Mrs. Fenn heard. Sad

by loopzdaloop on 21.01.14 23:20

I think this is a great thread.

I would add the broken fridge freezer and replacing it to the retro fit as if you were in the mccanns situation, I.e. holiday as opposed to the rest of it why would you care about the appliances! Very coincidental. Similarly, Kate cleaning the appartment with the bleach.why would you do that on holiday. When you leave they have cleaners to do that!

On the giving stuff away side of this thread as opposed to retrofit, I believe Kate's ideation about committing suicide by drowning is far too specific in her book description. Gerry saying 'find the body, prove we killed her' is also suspect.

by marconi on 21.01.14 23:28

are the mccanns still hanging around in England and how long is this still going to take? angry2

by marconi on 22.01.14 0:19

That article on pressmon is very close to what we learned through the years. or compleetely close to.
What I still don't know for sure is if it is true that blood was found in the car.
Kate is a very nervous type and one can see it in her weight and figure, eyes expression.

I hope that dna tests have improved more and more since 2007 and that the samples found in the car can tell us more than they did in 2007.

by **tigger** on 22.01.14 7:05

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

From the Vanity Fair interview sept. 07

He's also said 'it could have been worse, we could have lost all three'

Stupid burglars, they could have had one each!

by aquila on 22.01.14 9:17

For me it's Gerry's blogs that are the most telling. Reading them in their entirety without highlighting anything specific gives a true flavour of all that's 'odd' about this case.

There are many things in Gerry's blogs that can be highlighted but I think reading it all together gives the best insight.

Anything that could ever have made me think things are not right is contained in Gerry's blogs in his own words.

Just my opinion.

by Cristobell on 22.01.14 11:32

@aquila wrote:For me it's Gerry's blogs that are the most telling. Reading them in their entirety without highlighting anything specific gives a true flavour of all that's 'odd' about this case.

There are many things in Gerry's blogs that can be highlighted but I think reading it all together gives the best insight.

Anything that could ever have made me think things are not right is contained in Gerry's blogs in his own words.

Just my opinion.

I agree Aquila, Gerry's blogs took this case to a whole new level of weird. I think the intention was to bring visitors to the Madeleine website and the paypal button with his upbeat journal.

by worriedmum on 22.01.14 11:43

@worriedmum wrote:That Madeleine was carried back to the apartment because she was tired.

I have been ruminating on this... and a tired child will go to sleep very easily and early? As you say they did?

by aquila on 22.01.14 11:51

@Cristobell wrote:
@aquila wrote:For me it's Gerry's blogs that are the most telling. Reading them in their entirety without highlighting anything specific gives a true flavour of all that's 'odd' about this case.

There are many things in Gerry's blogs that can be highlighted but I think reading it all together gives the best insight.

Anything that could ever have made me think things are not right is contained in Gerry's blogs in his own words.

Just my opinion.

I agree Aquila, Gerry's blogs took this case to a whole new level of weird. I think the intention was to bring visitors to the Madeleine website and the paypal button with his upbeat journal.

There are clever people on this forum who can analyse Gerry's blogs (and have done). I'm not a clever person in that respect.

There is a tempo to Gerry's blogs over the period of a few weeks that doesn't take an expert in any field to understand that all is not right - not from GM's mouth and not from the unprecedented arrival of his highly paid advisors.

Once again, my opinion.

by tedless on 22.01.14 12:02

Just to add another one, Ive always thought the New Zealand wine an interesting detail to add. Why would you not just say white wine? I have pictured a scenario where the wine was poured down the sink and KM looked at the label to be able to recall later what wine they were drinking.

by Guest on 22.01.14 12:12

It has happened so often that people who turn out to be guilty of a crime have thrown in too many insignificant details to explain their actions or give themselves an alibi.

Think of Stuart Hazell and his elaborate tales of cleaning the house and Maxine Carr's pack of lies about she'd spent the fateful weekend at home with Ian Huntley when in fact she was away visiting friends.

It sounds contradictory but, in many cases where people provide too much information, they're actually trying to hide something!

by mysterion on 22.01.14 13:45

I think the police are suspicious of alibis that are just too good on detail. Most of us don`t remember that much.

by Guest on 22.01.14 14:21

@tedless wrote:Just to add another one, Ive always thought the New Zealand wine an interesting detail to add. Why would you not just say white wine? I have pictured a scenario where the wine was poured down the sink and KM looked at the label to be able to recall later what wine they were drinking.

Thank you tedless, Something has been bugging me about the NZ wine.
It's just that I find it strange that they would be drinking this and stressing it.
Why not Portuguese wine. Or Spanish wine. I don't know how big the supermarket is but they must have a very wide selection of wines.
Most people when abroad go for the local wine. Its usually very good and very cheap.

by mysterion on 22.01.14 15:20

Both Kate and Gerry had links to NZ and it is where they fell in love. So there are romantic connections for them and perhaps a certain snob value i.e. not the local plonk.
In my experience in Iberia, then isn`t a big choice like you have in Tesco.

by Okeydokey on 22.01.14 15:36

One of the women - think it might have been RO - made a big thing of telling the Police that KMcC had (on the fateful evening, at the Tapas Bar) confided in her her worries about leaving the children after the recent "why didn't you come when we were crying" incident. Another amazing coincidence from one point of view (how many parents of abducted children have premonitions of danger the same day as the abduction?) but equally one can see that as being something Tapas 9 really want to get across, that the "crying" incident really did happen.

by Woofer on 22.01.14 15:59

@aquila wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@aquila wrote:For me it's Gerry's blogs that are the most telling. Reading them in their entirety without highlighting anything specific gives a true flavour of all that's 'odd' about this case.

There are many things in Gerry's blogs that can be highlighted but I think reading it all together gives the best insight.

Anything that could ever have made me think things are not right is contained in Gerry's blogs in his own words.

Just my opinion.

I agree Aquila, Gerry's blogs took this case to a whole new level of weird. I think the intention was to bring visitors to the Madeleine website and the paypal button with his upbeat journal.
There are clever people on this forum who can analyse Gerry's blogs (and have done). I'm not a clever person in that respect.

There is a tempo to Gerry's blogs over the period of a few weeks that doesn't take an expert in any field to understand that all is not right - not from GM's mouth and not from the unprecedented arrival of his highly paid advisors.

Once again, my opinion.

My opinion too. The weirdest action ever. When one`s daughter is missing and could return any time, he creates a blog then spends time broadcasting to the nation. Self importance beyond belief. Letting his subjects know how long they took to jog to the rock. Absolutely beyond belief.

by Woofer on 22.01.14 16:02

@Okeydokey wrote:One of the women - think it might have been RO - made a big thing of telling the Police that KMcC had (on the fateful evening, at the Tapas Bar) confided in her her worries about leaving the children after the recent "why didn't you come when we were crying" incident. Another amazing coincidence from one point of view (how many parents of abducted children have premonitions of danger the same day as the abduction?) but equally one can see that as being something Tapas 9 really want to get across, that the "crying" incident really did happen.

Yes, it seems they were trying to reinforce in peoples` minds that the crying took place the night before on the Wednesday - when in fact it was actually the Tuesday night.

by **PeterMac** on 22.01.14 17:04

@Woofer wrote:
Yes, it seems they were trying to reinforce in peoples` minds that the crying took place the night before on the Wednesday - when in fact it was actually the Tuesday night.

There is far too much emphasis on the Wednesday night and the Thursday morning and lunchtime.
Too much in the book, far too much details about the Last Photo, which then does not stand up to scrutiny, too much detail about trivia, Tapas group down at the Paraiso for the first and last time, highly staged run along the beach, two versions of finding the family at tea OR signing M out of the creche and so on.
It all points to a sad death on a previous day. I just don't know which one.

by Guest on 22.01.14 17:28

I'm with you, Peter. NOT May 3. I'd go for May 2, but have no proof.
IMO, of course, as usual.

ETA to meet the topic: nonchalantly "Squeezing in a hair-cut" ...

by sami on 22.01.14 17:42

Kate says in her book Wednesday was their last happy day. I believer her. There are no happy memories for Thursday because it all ended on Wednesday.

by whmon on 22.01.14 19:24

'We've let her down'. That always seemed to me to be a strange thing to say. Later though, I read an interview with KM's father who also said 'we've let her down' in reference to his own daughter Kate. So - is this a normal 'in family' saying? A strange one if it is as it would indicate the family are letting each other down all the time, in my family the common 'in family' sayings tend to be along the lines of 'what's for dinner?' etc. I can't ever remember one person in my family using the statement 'we've let so and so down', never mind two people saying it.

Or - is it an example of the wider family also doing their bit to retrofit?

by Casey5 on 22.01.14 19:37

When Kate was telling Rachel Oldfield about the crying and the door being left open in case Madeleine wanted to find them, wouldn't you think Rachel would have expressed an opinion? After all she didn't leave her child in an unlocked apartment or so she said. Wouldn't most friends have said, given of course that it occurred, that it wasn't advisable for all the normal reasons, ask how Madeleine could open the door and the two gates in the dark in bare feet and find them.
It's such an obvious lie.

by Guest on 22.01.14 19:45

Yes, wasn't it a "collective" mistake ...? IIRC that's what GM preferred to call it. T7 may have been in shock, but never reacted ...

by Woofer on 22.01.14 20:24

Châtelaine wrote:I'm with you, Peter. NOT May 3. I'd go for May 2, but have no proof.
IMO, of course, as usual.

ETA to meet the topic: nonchalantly "Squeezing in a hair-cut" ...

Good one Châtelaine titter

Agree with the 2nd - full moon in Scorpio that night.

Things TM have said nonchalantly - for what purpose?