Re: Red Flags

by Guest 09.03.14 10:49

Châtelaine wrote:
Woofer wrote: [...]
I see what you mean when referring to a live child - but its clearer to me if it was the abduction of a dead child - I think the word can still apply to someone who is dead.
***
Yes, it can.
We've been here before. It's semantics. They never mention "kidnapping", which is nowadays the most common understood meaning of "abduction". Kidnapping is not a word to misunderstand. Abduction is, though, as it is not often used anymore in its original meaning: taking away ...

The McCs have often, if not always, tried to lie without lying = using words which can be and are meant to be misunderstood. And NSY is doing exactly the same IMO but then for the good.

I've thought that too; in the end their defense might be: 'but we always thought the word abduction meant: taking away a deceased person as well'

We've seen a lot, but in fact we've seen nothing yet

by Doug D 09.03.14 11:13

Agree entirely Chatelaine.

McSemantics again.

Oxford Dictionary

Abduction
1. The action of forcibly taking someone away against their will.
2. (In legal use) the illegal removal of a child from its parents or guardians.

So yes, abduction could just about be said to be the cause of a body being removed from an apartment, the ‘illegal’ part coming from not acting in the proper manner for a death, although you could also argue the toss about whether a body is really the same thing as a child.

But going by what I take to be the generally accepted Jill Havern dictionary and what I would propose as a forum definition:

Abduction. The removal of a living child from an apartment, without the parents knowledge or consent. eg McBurglar, long armed shutter-man, etc etc

This therefore does not allow for a planned & consented removal of a body, or a planned & consented removal of a living child, by whatever parties, and I feel should be considered just as removal, taking away, or disposal, anything but abduction.

by Guest 09.03.14 11:18

Châtelaine wrote:snipped

They never mention "kidnapping", which is nowadays the most common understood meaning of "abduction". Kidnapping is not a word to misunderstand. Abduction is, though, as it is not often used anymore in its original meaning: taking away ...

They never did mention that word, did they, Chatelaine? And that's just another thing that's odd.

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

in this regard I look at those early press statements and again, this is a gap. No reference to a 'kidnapper'. In using the words ‘the person who has Madeleine’ and avoiding the ‘k’ word, there could then not follow the associated logical actions such as pleading with them to contact them and name their terms. At that stage how did they know this to be an abduction without a demand for money rather than a kidnapping and how could they know that the kidnapper would not be shortly in touch to ask for a ransom. Surely, could not have been defined as anything else at that time could it? So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?

by Guest 09.03.14 11:39

MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?

***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

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

by Guest 09.03.14 11:44

Châtelaine wrote:
MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

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

Yes I remember that one. I should have made myself clear. I meant that two earlier ones -the first one made by GM by torchlight and then a similarly positioned one a short while later. I meant wasn't it odd that the idea of a kidnapper wasn't presented at the outset? smilie

by **tigger** 09.03.14 13:41

MILLIE wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes I remember that one. I should have made myself clear. I meant that two earlier ones -the first one made by GM by torchlight and then a similarly positioned one a short while later. I meant wasn't it odd that the idea of a kidnapper wasn't presented at the outset?

I see what you mean, it was so - abstract is the nearest I can get.

Yet for the PJ it was 'abduction' and nothing else from TM.

Perhaps Gerry'd been told he'd been a bit quick of the mark with the gang of paedophiles. Don't forget those notes from which they had to read the expected emotions (can't possibly say 'their emotions) were put together by those very early helpers which - entirely imo - may have drawn up a suitable script.

by jeanmonroe 09.03.14 14:57

Loving mum:
More important, I also feel, given all the facts of the case that an abduction is unlikely and an accident is more likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOpppss!

THAT's exactly what G Amaral SAID!

You'd better 'duck', writ to you, from Carter-Fcuk!

laughat

PeterM
So if somebody could rule abduction into the equation, it would be helpful.[/quote]

Not even Carter-Ruck could do that ! !
-------------------------------------------------------

Nor can the McCanns lawyer in Portugal!

Only EVER referring to the 'abduction' claim by the McCanns, as "the McCann couple's THESIS"

by **PeterMac** 09.03.14 15:33

jeanmonroe wrote:
PeterM
So if somebody could rule abduction into the equation, it would be helpful.

Not even Carter-Ruck could do that ! !
-------------------------------------------------------
Nor can the McCanns lawyer in Portugal!
Only EVER referring to the 'abduction' claim by the McCanns, as "the McCann couple's THESIS"

So that leaves
Gerry
Kate
Mitchell - possibly,( though even he may have realised the awful truth of what he has been doing )
one or two people in need of urgent psychiatric help on Twitter
err
ummm
errmm

by Guest 09.03.14 16:17

Châtelaine wrote:
MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

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

Never noticed the pinch before. Always calculating, always performing. But why correct her there?

What is the significant difference between "The person who is with Madeleine..." (nip and exasperated glance from Gerry) and "...or has been with Madeleine"? If the script dictated that Kate should have said "We would like to say a few words to the person who has been with Madeleine..." then why is it important to convey that Madeleine can no longer be with that person? Surely if they are trying to ensure we believe she is still alive it would be crucial to infer that she is still with somebody, still in their company?

Surely it would have been better to go with Kate's original words: "We would like to say a few words to the person who is with Madeleine..."? If she is not with anybody then the inference must be she's dead. I don't understand Gerry's intervention and the subsequent correction.

by **tigger** 09.03.14 17:15

@DeeCoy

It was quite early imo the original plan was to expect her to have died, which would be a certainty if paedophiles were the kidnappers.
The keeping alive and unharmed didn't really get stressed earlier than the 17th May.
Possibly because the financial response was greater by a factor of a thousand or so than expected. 50 million hits on the website, I remember Gerry saying that and also the expression on his face. Money was being promised by celebrities and it may have looked that chapter one of the great plan could be extended indefinetely.
Advice from those in the background who were already aware of the shaky evidence and the impossibility of directing a foreign investgation may have been to focus on the Fund and the celebrity driven campaign for a findable child.

Pure speculation on my part, but the blog and diary speak of a certain disappointment at the few bites they get of moving in the higher echelons of society. Gerry's US trip, no suitable position for Kate yet, crying twins.

Looking at it now, it seems to me that they were already being cast adrift on the good ship TM. Too hot to handle.
After the blessing by the Pope it started to go downhill imo. They would have expected to be received by heads of state and that never happened.
The closest they got was an aide of the wife of the president.

by **PeterMac** 09.03.14 17:19

tigger wrote:
After the blessing by the Pope it started to go downhill imo. They would have expected to be received by heads of state and that never happened.
The closest they got was an aide of the wife of the president.

Followed in short order by eviction from the Vatican website, in the weeks BEFORE they were made arguidos. The Vatican has a very sophisticated intelligence network

by Mirage 09.03.14 17:19

Dee Coy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

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

Never noticed the pinch before. Always calculating, always performing. But why correct her there?

What is the significant difference between "The person who is with Madeleine..." (nip and exasperated glance from Gerry) and "...or has been with Madeleine"? If the script dictated that Kate should have said "We would like to say a few words to the person who has been with Madeleine..." then why is it important to convey that Madeleine can no longer be with that person? Surely if they are trying to ensure we believe she is still alive it would be crucial to infer that she is still with somebody, still in their company?

Surely it would have been better to go with Kate's original words: "We would like to say a few words to the person who is with Madeleine..."? If she is not with anybody then the inference must be she's dead. I don't understand Gerry's intervention and the subsequent correction.

Perhaps it is a veiled message to certain players, much as the unsuitable photos may have been 3 years later.

by Guest 09.03.14 17:24

Mirage wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

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

Never noticed the pinch before. Always calculating, always performing. But why correct her there?

What is the significant difference between "The person who is with Madeleine..." (nip and exasperated glance from Gerry) and "...or has been with Madeleine"? If the script dictated that Kate should have said "We would like to say a few words to the person who has been with Madeleine..." then why is it important to convey that Madeleine can no longer be with that person? Surely if they are trying to ensure we believe she is still alive it would be crucial to infer that she is still with somebody, still in their company?

Surely it would have been better to go with Kate's original words: "We would like to say a few words to the person who is with Madeleine..."? If she is not with anybody then the inference must be she's dead. I don't understand Gerry's intervention and the subsequent correction.

"Has been" is the pluperfect tense and further back in the past. In the same way as photos of MBM perhaps contained a targeted message to certain people, perhaps GM is wishing to target the " bastards have taken her" lot rather than later bit-part players.

"The person who is with Madeleine or has been with Madeleine". How did they know there was just one of them? This is at odds with "They've taken her".

by Mirage 09.03.14 17:31

MILLIE wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
MILLIE wrote: [...] So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
***
AFAIK there was ONE. Kate obviously reading from notes, Gerry pinching her shoulder when she makes a mistake and sinking his face in her neck at the end. A toe-curling performance, still to be found on youtube:

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

Never noticed the pinch before. Always calculating, always performing. But why correct her there?

What is the significant difference between "The person who is with Madeleine..." (nip and exasperated glance from Gerry) and "...or has been with Madeleine"? If the script dictated that Kate should have said "We would like to say a few words to the person who has been with Madeleine..." then why is it important to convey that Madeleine can no longer be with that person? Surely if they are trying to ensure we believe she is still alive it would be crucial to infer that she is still with somebody, still in their company?

Surely it would have been better to go with Kate's original words: "We would like to say a few words to the person who is with Madeleine..."? If she is not with anybody then the inference must be she's dead. I don't understand Gerry's intervention and the subsequent correction.

"Has been" is the pluperfect tense and further back in the past. In the same way as photos of MBM perhaps contained a targeted message to certain people, perhaps GM is wishing to target the " bastards have taken her" lot rather than later bit-part players.

"The person who is with Madeleine or has been with Madeleine". How did they know there was just one of them? This is at odds with "They've taken her".

Yes Millie, scrub round that. I changed my post as I reconsidered. Also perfect not pluperfect I think - lunchtime glass of wine addles the brain.
It flat out doesn't make sense to me on any level. But that has been the way of this pair all along. Whatever murky world they inhabit they are stuck with all its ghastliness forever. I would hate to be them waking up to the same burden each day. Bit like old Sisyphus trundling the stone to the top of a hill only for it to roll down to the bottom again.An inescapable fate. Justice of a sort I guess.

by Monty Heck 09.03.14 17:42

MILLIE wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:snipped

They never mention "kidnapping", which is nowadays the most common understood meaning of "abduction". Kidnapping is not a word to misunderstand. Abduction is, though, as it is not often used anymore in its original meaning: taking away ...

They never did mention that word, did they, Chatelaine? And that's just another thing that's odd.

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

in this regard I look at those early press statements and again, this is a gap. No reference to a 'kidnapper'. In using the words ‘the person who has Madeleine’ and avoiding the ‘k’ word, there could then not follow the associated logical actions such as pleading with them to contact them and name their terms. At that stage how did they know this to be an abduction without a demand for money rather than a kidnapping and how could they know that the kidnapper would not be shortly in touch to ask for a ransom. Surely, could not have been defined as anything else at that time could it? So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?

Yes, curious that the word "abducted" was the one planted in the public consciousness from the earliest moments, rather than the more emotive, media friendly "kidnapped". Perhaps abducted simply sounded more middle class, or maybe kidnapped is too closely associated with forced removal for financial gain? There was no ransom note or call, but how could it have been immediately forseen that there would be neither, ever? In the very beginning the McCs could not have known their child was not kidnapped for ransom, yet seem to have taken great pains from the outset to ensure that concept was stifled.

by Watching 09.03.14 18:25

Monty Heck wrote:
MILLIE wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:snipped

They never mention "kidnapping", which is nowadays the most common understood meaning of "abduction". Kidnapping is not a word to misunderstand. Abduction is, though, as it is not often used anymore in its original meaning: taking away ...

They never did mention that word, did they, Chatelaine? And that's just another thing that's odd.

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

in this regard I look at those early press statements and again, this is a gap. No reference to a 'kidnapper'. In using the words ‘the person who has Madeleine’ and avoiding the ‘k’ word, there could then not follow the associated logical actions such as pleading with them to contact them and name their terms. At that stage how did they know this to be an abduction without a demand for money rather than a kidnapping and how could they know that the kidnapper would not be shortly in touch to ask for a ransom. Surely, could not have been defined as anything else at that time could it? So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
Yes, curious that the word "abducted" was the one planted in the public consciousness from the earliest moments, rather than the more emotive, media friendly "kidnapped". Perhaps abducted simply sounded more middle class, or maybe kidnapped is too closely associated with forced removal for financial gain? There was no ransom note or call, but how could it have been immediately forseen that there would be neither, ever? In the very beginning the McCs could not have known their child was not kidnapped for ransom, yet seem to have taken great pains from the outset to ensure that concept was stifled.

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

Matt obviously didn't know Mr & Mrs were hard up!

Matthew Oldfield's Statement of 4th May 2007

[size=13.333333969116211]'The interviewee thinks that it is a kidnapping with the intention to demand a ransom from the parents, because these are people who are very comfortable financially'[/size]

by Guest 09.03.14 18:28

I think another red flag is KM asking (demanding) a priest in the small hours of the night.
FP "she kept kneeling everywhere just praying and praying and praying and asking for a Priest and just wanted, you know, everybody to be praying for Madeleine for her to be safe"
By all means pray, make deals with god, whatever, WHILE you are running aroung SEARCHING for your daughter.
Not wasting the time of police or others to find a priest for YOU.
KM managed to make it all about herself from the very beginning.

by mariola 09.03.14 18:37

dantezebu wrote:I think another red flag is KM asking (demanding) a priest in the small hours of the night.
FP "she kept kneeling everywhere just praying and praying and praying and asking for a Priest and just wanted, you know, everybody to be praying for Madeleine for her to be safe"
By all means pray, make deals with god, whatever, WHILE you are running aroung SEARCHING for your daughter.
Not wasting the time of police or others to find a priest for YOU.
KM managed to make it all about herself from the very beginning.

Especiallly suspect as kates,s mother said she was surprised at the request for a priest as neither kate nor gerry were particularly religious.definite red flag.good call.

by Watching 09.03.14 18:57

Monty Heck wrote:
MILLIE wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:snipped

They never mention "kidnapping", which is nowadays the most common understood meaning of "abduction". Kidnapping is not a word to misunderstand. Abduction is, though, as it is not often used anymore in its original meaning: taking away ...

They never did mention that word, did they, Chatelaine? And that's just another thing that's odd.

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

in this regard I look at those early press statements and again, this is a gap. No reference to a 'kidnapper'. In using the words ‘the person who has Madeleine’ and avoiding the ‘k’ word, there could then not follow the associated logical actions such as pleading with them to contact them and name their terms. At that stage how did they know this to be an abduction without a demand for money rather than a kidnapping and how could they know that the kidnapper would not be shortly in touch to ask for a ransom. Surely, could not have been defined as anything else at that time could it? So where was the appeal to the ‘kidnapper’ to get in touch, come to an agreement for the safe release?
Yes, curious that the word "abducted" was the one planted in the public consciousness from the earliest moments, rather than the more emotive, media friendly "kidnapped". Perhaps abducted simply sounded more middle class, or maybe kidnapped is too closely associated with forced removal for financial gain? There was no ransom note or call, but how could it have been immediately forseen that there would be neither, ever? In the very beginning the McCs could not have known their child was not kidnapped for ransom, yet seem to have taken great pains from the outset to ensure that concept was stifled.

I think you are correct. Kidnap conjures up someone taken for financial gain. A ransom note expected when we hear 'kidnap.' Abduction on the other hand we are more inclined to think of someone being taken to be harmed in some physical form, or murdered. Mr & Mrs knew there would be no ransom note. They did not either promote the reward in the early days put up by celebs (which fizzled out) nor did they put up a reward themselves from the Fund. Which they could do now. If they had and someone came forward to claim it they would have messed their underwear! They weren't taking any chances by offering reward.

by Guest 09.03.14 19:01

mariola wrote:
dantezebu wrote:I think another red flag is KM asking (demanding) a priest in the small hours of the night.
FP "she kept kneeling everywhere just praying and praying and praying and asking for a Priest and just wanted, you know, everybody to be praying for Madeleine for her to be safe"
By all means pray, make deals with god, whatever, WHILE you are running aroung SEARCHING for your daughter.
Not wasting the time of police or others to find a priest for YOU.
KM managed to make it all about herself from the very beginning.
Especiallly suspect as kates,s mother said she was surprised at the request for a priest as neither kate nor gerry were particularly religious.definite red flag.good call.

Although they may not have been particularly religious, but they did evidently have a priest friend of some years who went out to visit them later according to the rogs:

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

by Guest 09.03.14 19:02

tigger wrote:@DeeCoy

It was quite early imo the original plan was to expect her to have died, which would be a certainty if paedophiles were the kidnappers.
The keeping alive and unharmed didn't really get stressed earlier than the 17th May.
Possibly because the financial response was greater by a factor of a thousand or so than expected. 50 million hits on the website, I remember Gerry saying that and also the expression on his face. Money was being promised by celebrities and it may have looked that chapter one of the great plan could be extended indefinetely.
Advice from those in the background who were already aware of the shaky evidence and the impossibility of directing a foreign investgation may have been to focus on the Fund and the celebrity driven campaign for a findable child.

Pure speculation on my part, but the blog and diary speak of a certain disappointment at the few bites they get of moving in the higher echelons of society. Gerry's US trip, no suitable position for Kate yet, crying twins.

Looking at it now, it seems to me that they were already being cast adrift on the good ship TM. Too hot to handle.
After the blessing by the Pope it started to go downhill imo. They would have expected to be received by heads of state and that never happened.
The closest they got was an aide of the wife of the president.

Thank you, tigger roses

.

I do wonder if it was a secret message to 'the person' (not people) who may have assisted that night - pure speculation, as usual.

by Guest 09.03.14 19:04

Something that's been hounding my mind from the beginning is the combination of
* calling "abduction" without evidence to sustain that
* the sole reason valid for me for hiding a corpse is to avoid an autopsy
* the hiding may have been improvised and she might have been found early on
* not searching themselves - oh, we've over here a thousand times, what anyone of us would have done, if our child, or that cat, dog, gerbil, pet rat, goldfish would be missing...
* the DOGS!

by Guest 09.03.14 19:06

PeterMac wrote:
Followed in short order by eviction from the Vatican website, in the weeks BEFORE they were made arguidos. The Vatican has a very sophisticated intelligence network

***
It is reportedly better than Mossad ...

by **tigger** 09.03.14 19:38

Dee Coy wrote:
tigger wrote:@DeeCoy

It was quite early imo the original plan was to expect her to have died, which would be a certainty if paedophiles were the kidnappers.
The keeping alive and unharmed didn't really get stressed earlier than the 17th May.
Possibly because the financial response was greater by a factor of a thousand or so than expected. 50 million hits on the website, I remember Gerry saying that and also the expression on his face. Money was being promised by celebrities and it may have looked that chapter one of the great plan could be extended indefinetely.
Advice from those in the background who were already aware of the shaky evidence and the impossibility of directing a foreign investgation may have been to focus on the Fund and the celebrity driven campaign for a findable child.

Pure speculation on my part, but the blog and diary speak of a certain disappointment at the few bites they get of moving in the higher echelons of society. Gerry's US trip, no suitable position for Kate yet, crying twins.

Looking at it now, it seems to me that they were already being cast adrift on the good ship TM. Too hot to handle.
After the blessing by the Pope it started to go downhill imo. They would have expected to be received by heads of state and that never happened.
The closest they got was an aide of the wife of the president.

Thank you, tigger .

I do wonder if it was a secret message to 'the person' (not people) who may have assisted that night - pure speculation, as usual.

But your interpretation of that phrase is very valid. Imo they didn't know the person who had moved the body to a location with a freezer.
Murat had no reaction from the dogs, Gerry was as pure as the driven snow, imo a 3rd person did the hiding.
There's lots of these hints, have a look at the early analyses of Dr. Roberts. Mention of a key, friends and 'other' people who can be trusted or not. Leaking like baskets imo. Then Kate wittered on about the caring paedo, Maddie being able to stand up for herself and also (several times iirc) that she felt she'd be in somebody's cellar.

Eta:
It's from Dr.Roberts' 2009 first article - mccannfiles.com

The likelihood of Madeleine having been abducted is vanishingly small when assessed in terms of mathematical probability, and we must therefore consider an alternative fate. A lengthy statement by GM to ITV on 25th May, 2007 opens the door somewhat.

GM: "We truly believe that a member of the public holds the information to unlock where Madeleine is being kept. They either will have seen something, that will lead to the abductor being traced, or they will notice suspicious behaviour from someone, and we truly believe that and I think, you know, we cannot have imagined how successful our campaign to keep the publicity going, regarding her disappearance, has been, but it's because people have seen that and with information technology, the world is so much smaller, we believe that there truly is a feeling here that the people will not allow this to happen and they want Madeleine to be found and everyone is acting, some in big ways; every small piece of action here helps the search."

We begin by discovering Madeleine's fate on departing 5A. She was locked up inside something or somewhere (by the way, how does GM know that a key is required to access his daughter?). A few months later (October) KM tells us it's a house:

Q (Antena 3): "Do you still maintain the hope, that is, genuinely believe that Madeleine is still alive?"

KM: "I do, maybe even more so, I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there, errm... I think she's probably in someone's house. I don't know why, errm... and I... I suppose it's a feeling but I feel, as Madeleine's mummy, I feel in my heart really that she's there and I don't believe Madeleine's been taken from us permanently. I don't believe that; don't feel it."
Unquote

by mariola 09.03.14 19:50

MILLIE wrote:
mariola wrote:
dantezebu wrote:I think another red flag is KM asking (demanding) a priest in the small hours of the night.
FP "she kept kneeling everywhere just praying and praying and praying and asking for a Priest and just wanted, you know, everybody to be praying for Madeleine for her to be safe"
By all means pray, make deals with god, whatever, WHILE you are running aroung SEARCHING for your daughter.
Not wasting the time of police or others to find a priest for YOU.
KM managed to make it all about herself from the very beginning.
Especiallly suspect as kates,s mother said she was surprised at the request for a priest as neither kate nor gerry were particularly religious.definite red flag.good call.
Although they may not have been particularly religious, but they did evidently have a priest friend of some years who went out to visit them later according to the rogs:

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

Thanks millie,i can understand having a priest as a friend who would go out to visit them after a week or so but to phone him so soon when maddie could have been napping under a bush is a massive red flag for me and hopefully will be for a jury too.

Log in for more topics