Re: Red Flags

by HelenMeg 07.03.14 15:43

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
All caught on camera. How handy. DP arrives between approx. 17:47 and 17:52 and exits between 18:13 and 18:36. Men go to tennis court (so they say) and then DP visits KM (so they say).

I don't see how it being 'handy' makes it 'deliberate'.

I'm not here to argue - I havent said that being handy = deliberate. It is handy if they need to get an alibi

by russiandoll 07.03.14 15:44

quote :

I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don't let her be in here. The mosst striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.

The most striking and horrific thing about ALL THIS for normal people would not be that you were a lone pair of adults looking for your child [ even if that were true]... but that your little girl aged only 3 was, if she was alive, terrified by her ordeal at the hands of a stranger.

It was Maddie who was completely alone and who knows where.

Correction, someone knew.

As always, without shame. sad

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 15:47

HelenMeg wrote:
I dont know if it is deliberate - I just said it 'almost looks as if..' ... because when I just viewed each picture to check to see all faces were present - they all seemed to have a moment when they were in the frame.
But of course, that may be because coincidentally their chosen seats were in clear camera view.
If they were there to get an alibi, then they achieved it 10 / 10.

Oh yes, I agree with you there. Reconsidering this it probably does look like a red flag, even if there is a possibility that the visit was entirely innocent.

by **Hobs** 07.03.14 15:48

578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

Reply “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any chance they’d accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right, I mean they wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, TRIED TO REVIVE a child, erm”.

RO goes outside the boundries of the question, making it sensitive.

The question was Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?
Reply “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others.

This stays within the boundries of the question.
Next though she goes beyond the boundries of the question and explains what would happen if Maddie had been injured.
Note though where she starts.

Order is important
Here her first words in relation to Maddie are:
erm you know so if by any chance they’d accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right,

Priority ie first on her mind is kate and gerry doing something albeit accidentally to Maddie.
this is followed by she was ill finally followed by something not being quite right.
What does she mean by something not being quite right?
She excludes illness as being something not quite right since she named it specifically.
She exclude kate and gerry doing something accidentally to Maddie
Where does this leave us?
kate and gerry doing something deliberately to Maddie?
Someone else in the group doing something either deliberate or accidentally to Maddie?

They wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident

She doesn't tell us they would have left her and covered it up as an accident, only thtthey would sort have tried indicating perhaps being upsuccessful.
To try something doesn't mean it was successful.
As we all know, the abduction theory was discounted very early on since there was no forensic evidence of any kind to indicate abduction and alot of evidence to indicate death.

Wouldn't is future conditional.
She doesn't tell us they didn't try to cover it up as an accident only that they wouldn't.
Should they have had a chance to do things over they may have changed tactics and explanations.

or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there

You know is used to convice and convey and here it is repeated 6 times making it highly sensitive out of a total of 13 in the one answer, who is she trying to convince, the investigator or herself?
She doesn't tell us they would have come and got them only that they would have sort of come and got them.
She also doesn't tell us there were 6 people there, rather there were kind of 6 people there, were there more or were there less?

What there wasn't was 6 people.
Does the 6 people refer to all the doctors including kate and gerry or were there others there as well?

there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, TRIED TO REVIVE a child, erm”.

Here she introduces bump on the head but notice she says Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head
Not the passive Maddie bumped her head, rather an action done to Maddie, someone bumped her on the head whether by accident or design.
Was this why the abduction had to be staged?
The fatal injury was such that it could not be explained away as an accident?
This then leads to somone lashing out in temper and striking her once or maddie beaing beaten to death which could never be explained away.
There were no theories that i was aware of that specified maddie being bumped on the head, there were many theories but none that specified a certain type of injury.
She tells us a specific, bump on the head and then fails to mention any other scenario.

She doesn't tell us they could revive a child only that they could have tried, indicating an unsuccessful attempt.
Could this explain the blood spatter?
Was a tracheotomy attempted?
This may fit in with head injuries.
The position of the splatter, the type of ssplatter and the direction can tell us a lot about what happened and what caused it.

RO knows or suspects what happened making the question about the doctors in the group sensitive to her and resulting in her going beyond the boundries of the question.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 15:51

Just the fact that of all people that this could have happened to, it happened to a bunch of doctors and medical people, seems like a red flag to me.

by **PeterMac** 07.03.14 15:54

HelenMeg wrote:
I have a theory that GM was with RM during the afternoon. (phones both switched off). I think they were at the golf club whose name I forget... planning. The TAPAS 7 are sent to paraiso, either 'in the know' or
'unknowing' .

But even easier is to consider not 'planning" but "doing".

Blue bag, carried by a known tennis player during the afternoon, arouses no suspicion.
Bag is then put back on the shelf and is inadvertently photographed, even though Mitchell famously lied about its very existence later.
But within a day or so the leakage into the bag is noticeable and it is dumped. But the leakage has contaminated the shelf below, and is traced by Eddie and Keela months later.

Then, yes I agree there has to be planning of what is going to be said by the key players.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 16:06

PeterMac wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
I have a theory that GM was with RM during the afternoon. (phones both switched off). I think they were at the golf club whose name I forget... planning. The TAPAS 7 are sent to paraiso, either 'in the know' or
'unknowing' .
But even easier is to consider not 'planning" but "doing".

Blue bag, carried by a known tennis player during the afternoon, arouses no suspicion.
Bag is then put back on the shelf and is inadvertently photographed, even though Mitchell famously lied about its very existence later.
But within a day or so the leakage into the bag is noticeable and it is dumped. But the leakage has contaminated the shelf below, and is traced by Eddie and Keela months later.

Then, yes I agree there has to be planning of what is going to be said by the key players.

Is there a possibility that Kate wasn't 'in the know', and so wasn't invited to the Paraiso, nor wherever Gerry went, so she just went running? That she was a liability that was kept well out of the way of everything that was going on?

I have great difficulty with the reactions of certain people that evening, none of whom were actors.

- Kate's scream (as described by J.R.Salcedas)
- The Paynes being completely hysterical
- Kate not appearing to co-operate with the 'plan', or functioning at all
- Everyone totally calm only a short while earlier at the Tapas

I've seen arguments that say that Kate's scream may have been her discovering that the body had gone. But that doesn't cut it for me. People will have me believe that Kate could sit at the Tapas, emotionless, and that later on she was acting grief-stricken. But they also want me to believe that at the time of the scream she suddenly lost this amazing acting ability?

Also, if you want to avoid suspicion, what you do is GO OUT AND SEARCH. In view of everyone else. You don't sit on your bed, not 'what you would call physically searching'. I can explain this by claiming that Kate was genuinely grief-stricken. I can find no explanation if she was acting.

by mariola 07.03.14 16:29

jeanmonroe wrote:mariola

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

'SEARCHING or NOT'

thank you.

by Guest 07.03.14 17:21

[quote="mariola"]

ultimaThule wrote:From the bewk:

Friday 4 May. Our first day with Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we'd never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eerieness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don't let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.

Does it really say WITH Madeleine rather than WITHOUT in the book?

by jeanmonroe 07.03.14 18:06

SUSAN HEALY: If Madeleine had an accident in Kate's presence, Kate is a doctor for goodness sake, they were on holiday with doctors, the first thing she would have done would have been to have sought help for Madeleine, you know, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that Kate would do anything else.
--------------------------------------

There's that word, 'ACCIDENT', again!

IF Madeleine HAD an accident...

That's what R Oldfield also SAID!

IF

not saying she did

BUT

also not saying she didn't.

by Cristobell 07.03.14 18:31

A minor point, but one that has always niggled me is the book Kate read to Maddie before she went to sleep 'If Your Happy and You Know It'. Its not a book its a song! And quite a lively one too. And not a song anyone would sing, or play (it involves actions) with toddlers they were trying to get to sleep. I've seen Kate say a couple of times she read IYHAYKI to Madeleine before she went to sleep, one time on the Oprah Show, and even she looks embarrassed saying it.

by Hicks 07.03.14 18:38

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
I have a theory that GM was with RM during the afternoon. (phones both switched off). I think they were at the golf club whose name I forget... planning. The TAPAS 7 are sent to paraiso, either 'in the know' or
'unknowing' .
But even easier is to consider not 'planning" but "doing".

Blue bag, carried by a known tennis player during the afternoon, arouses no suspicion.
Bag is then put back on the shelf and is inadvertently photographed, even though Mitchell famously lied about its very existence later.
But within a day or so the leakage into the bag is noticeable and it is dumped. But the leakage has contaminated the shelf below, and is traced by Eddie and Keela months later.

Then, yes I agree there has to be planning of what is going to be said by the key players.

Is there a possibility that Kate wasn't 'in the know', and so wasn't invited to the Paraiso, nor wherever Gerry went, so she just went running? That she was a liability that was kept well out of the way of everything that was going on?

I have great difficulty with the reactions of certain people that evening, none of whom were actors.

- Kate's scream (as described by J.R.Salcedas)
- The Paynes being completely hysterical
- Kate not appearing to co-operate with the 'plan', or functioning at all
- Everyone totally calm only a short while earlier at the Tapas

I've seen arguments that say that Kate's scream may have been her discovering that the body had gone. But that doesn't cut it for me. People will have me believe that Kate could sit at the Tapas, emotionless, and that later on she was acting grief-stricken. But they also want me to believe that at the time of the scream she suddenly lost this amazing acting ability?

Also, if you want to avoid suspicion, what you do is GO OUT AND SEARCH. In view of everyone else. You don't sit on your bed, not 'what you would call physically searching'. I can explain this by claiming that Kate was genuinely grief-stricken. I can find no explanation if she was acting.

Witness statement (Jose Maria Baptista Roque volume XII) from GNR who attended on the night of the 3rd.

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

'he found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them even though they produced noises identical to crying'.

There is a vid - that I can't find- where Kate is again crying with no tears. She is wearing those check trousers and a green t-shirt.

How do you know that Kate was without emotion on the night in question? I imagine it possible that the group were helping Kate to keep under control until the time she needn't bother.

by Guest 07.03.14 18:46

Cristobell wrote:A minor point, but one that has always niggled me is the book Kate read to Maddie before she went to sleep 'If Your Happy and You Know It'. Its not a book its a song! And quite a lively one too. And not a song anyone would sing, or play (it involves actions) with toddlers they were trying to get to sleep. I've seen Kate say a couple of times she read IYHAYKI to Madeleine before she went to sleep, one time on the Oprah Show, and even she looks embarrassed saying it.

***
Everything for a reason ... It's supporting "evidence" for their claims, as we see Madeleine's singing it in the few videos that were released sad

ETA I agree with you, as I've been saying many times before in the past years: it is NOT the kind of thing you do, when trying to settle young children in ...

by ultimaThule 07.03.14 18:57

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
mariola wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:From the bewk:

Friday 4 May. Our first day with Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we'd never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eerieness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don't let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.

Does it really say WITH Madeleine rather than WITHOUT in the book.

Mea culpa, NFWTD. The tome does indeed say WITHOUT.

by Doug D 07.03.14 19:05

If you're happy.......

There are a couple of cardboard-looking childrens books of it on Amazon. It won’t let me copy the back cover but says:

‘A riotous animal romp based on the popular children’s rhyme, which is fantastic to read out loud and to join in the fun”

Obviously ideal when you’re trying to settle a kid down so you can go out on the piss all evening!

by Guest 07.03.14 19:22

What, if anything, do people think was actually achieved by those first two press statements? I was always surprised that there was no translator on the spot, translating the words into Portuguese, since if Madeleine had been taken by a Portuguese person, he may not have understood Gerry's appeal. Then again, were these statements ever broadcast live in Portugal? Also there was no photo of Madeleine held up at these press events, so how on earth would people have known what to look for? No description given of her either. No mention of a reward no contact phone number etc etc.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter, Madeleine. We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely. Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her Mummy, Daddy, brother and sister. As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their investigation. Thank you.

SECOND STATEMENT
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
We would like to make another short statement relating to Madeleine’s disappearance. First of all we would like to thank everyone here in Portugal, the UK and elsewhere for all your support during this extremely difficult time for a family. We are pleased that the family liaison officers from Leicestershire are now working closely with the Portuguese police and in keeping us informed. We have no further information regarding the investigation but appreciate the significant efforts everyone is making on our behalf. We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine. Finally we would like to thank the media for respecting our privacy especially that of Madeleine’s little brother and sister.

by lj 07.03.14 19:28

Doug D wrote:If you're happy.......

There are a couple of cardboard-looking childrens books of it on Amazon. It won’t let me copy the back cover but says:

‘A riotous animal romp based on the popular children’s rhyme, which is fantastic to read out loud and to join in the fun”

Obviously ideal when you’re trying to settle a kid down so you can go out on the piss all evening!

Maybe it was to reinforce the working of a happy pill?

AMO of course, because Gerry told us they did not sedate the children.

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

by Guest 07.03.14 20:14

... never sedated his children ...
NOR himself

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

by Guest 07.03.14 20:14

Oops, that's one hell of a link ... but it works laughat

by diatribe 07.03.14 20:28

Just checking to ensure my nose hasn't grown any longer and that you are on script with your questions.

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

by Guest 07.03.14 21:18

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

"I have a earie feeling."

by Okeydokey 07.03.14 21:37

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Something else odd I've noted before - not a Red Flag as such but odd - is that they are reluctant to admit visiting each other's apartments prior to the abduction, when that would seem the most natural thing to do if you were holidaying with friends and their children...just natural curiosity surely would come into play.

But of course it would make sense if the apartment had had a thorough clean.

Alternatively, it would also make sense if this time (between 6:30 and 7:30) was the period when the McCann children were sedated.

I meant that in the rogatory interviews most of them I think deny visiting each other's apartments during the holiday (rather than just that tight time period).

by **tigger** 07.03.14 21:46

MILLIE wrote:What, if anything, do people think was actually achieved by those first two press statements? I was always surprised that there was no translator on the spot, translating the words into Portuguese, since if Madeleine had been taken by a Portuguese person, he may not have understood Gerry's appeal. Then again, were these statements ever broadcast live in Portugal? Also there was no photo of Madeleine held up at these press events, so how on earth would people have known what to look for? No description given of her either. No mention of a reward no contact phone number etc etc.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter, Madeleine. We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely. Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her Mummy, Daddy, brother and sister. As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their investigation. Thank you.

SECOND STATEMENT
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
We would like to make another short statement relating to Madeleine’s disappearance. First of all we would like to thank everyone here in Portugal, the UK and elsewhere for all your support during this extremely difficult time for a family. We are pleased that the family liaison officers from Leicestershire are now working closely with the Portuguese police and in keeping us informed. We have no further information regarding the investigation but appreciate the significant efforts everyone is making on our behalf. We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine. Finally we would like to thank the media for respecting our privacy especially that of Madeleine’s little brother and sister.

That first statement is already all about them isn't it?
Second one written by different people.
Points in order of importance:
They are suffering
Madeleine is beautiful and this is a factor in the disappearance and possible return
They need their privacy

Well spotted Millie roses

by Guest 07.03.14 22:32

It's that first statement, that gave my "Maman" goose pimples. She thought [89 at the time, bad hearing, bad sight] that it was a friend or family member, who delivered the little speech ... When I explained, it was Madeleine's father, she was perplex and has been following the case ever since.

by Okeydokey 07.03.14 23:47

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Just the fact that of all people that this could have happened to, it happened to a bunch of doctors and medical people, seems like a red flag to me.

Good point.