White Flags

by HelenMeg 29.03.14 21:48

Things that would indicate that the Mc Canns are telling the truth - that their daughter was abducted. Now dont all rush at once.

Because their friends back them up
Because Madeleine is nowhere to be found? Actually no - if she'd been abducted - she'd have probably been located by now
Because the Mc Canns are still free and also the TAPAS guys

by whmon 29.03.14 22:20

The only thing I can think of which would explain their innocence is something a poster said earlier today (or last night I forget which and I forget who said it) . Somebody mentioned necrophilia and that the only way somebody would steal a body was for that reason. Maybe. Doubt it though. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if TM went on this trajectory.

by Woofer 29.03.14 22:39

That they`re God fearing Catholics. laughat

P.S. sorry to be facitious - this thread is actually a good idea.

by bodiddly 29.03.14 23:39

The only way I can see them being innocent in MM's death is if it wasn't MM that died.

by View-from-Ireland 30.03.14 0:02

That they didn't just let the story die year ago.

This is the one thing that plays on my mind.They have seemingly tried everything possible to keep it alive. Now I understand that it could be some psychological desire to be caught so that their intelligence would be revealed, but it is one to ponder.

by jeanmonroe 30.03.14 2:55

whmon wrote:The only thing I can think of which would explain their innocence is something a poster said earlier today (or last night I forget which and I forget who said it) . Somebody mentioned necrophilia and that the only way somebody would steal a body was for that reason. Maybe. Doubt it though. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if TM went on this trajectory.

Somebody would steal a body?

Is that 'body' alive or dead when it is stolen ?

by whmon 30.03.14 3:07

That would be a dead body Jean.

by jeanmonroe 30.03.14 3:31

But still, I wouldn't be surprised if TM went on this trajectory.
-----------------------------------

Wouldn't that mean TM having to 'admit' that there was indeed a 'dead' body to actually 'steal' from their apartment, 5A?

by AskTheDogsSandra 30.03.14 6:49

HelenMeg wrote:Things that would indicate that the Mc Canns are telling the truth - that their daughter was abducted. Now dont all rush at once.

I would believe the McCanns are telling the truth, that their daughter was abducted, IF both the British sniffer dogs WERE proved to be wrong (in exactly the same places) and that it wasn't really blood and death scent that was detected on Kate's clothes, on Maddie's cuddlecat toy, on the child's red tshirt, on the wall and floor behind the sofa, in the flowerbed, in the wardrobe and in the boot of the car that the McCann's hired 25 days AFTER Maddie was 'abducted'.

If both of these dogs were proved to be WRONG then I would believe the McCann's are 100% INNOCENT of any wrongdoing and they should be allowed to continue begging for money forever.

But the dogs have NEVER been wrong in more than 200 cases.

wow

by Watching 30.03.14 7:03

If there are any white flags they must be buried beneath the red ones as they're not showing!

by **tigger** 30.03.14 7:09

Woofer wrote:That they`re God fearing Catholics.

P.S. sorry to be facitious - this thread is actually a good idea.

Not so much 'fearig' as 'bothering'.

See the book and Dr.Roberts' 'A tense situation'.

Kate had asked God for protection in specific situations and God had protected the family from bumps on the head and car accidents. but not from abduction, because Kate had failed to specify that contingency.

i believe that she's also said - possibly in the radio interview with Aled Jones - that she was annoyed with God. Making the Almighty more like a supermarket where one can expect whatever is ordered to arrive.
So specific protection asked for: bumps on the head and car accidents. We can be fairly sure that the protection from car accident was delivered as demanded, the bump on the head protection may not have been. No wonder Kate was annoyed with God for not listening to her. She should have lodged a complaint with the representative in Rome.

If it was a bump on the head it's a white flag, somebody else's fault. God in this case.

by Watching 30.03.14 8:23

tigger wrote:
Woofer wrote:That they`re God fearing Catholics.

P.S. sorry to be facitious - this thread is actually a good idea.

Not so much 'fearig' as 'bothering'.

See the book and Dr.Roberts' 'A tense situation'.

Kate had asked God for protection in specific situations and God had protected the family from bumps on the head and car accidents. but not from abduction, because Kate had failed to specify that contingency.

i believe that she's also said - possibly in the radio interview with Aled Jones - that she was annoyed with God. Making the Almighty more like a supermarket where one can expect whatever is ordered to arrive.
So specific protection asked for: bumps on the head and car accidents. We can be fairly sure that the protection from car accident was delivered as demanded, the bump on the head protection may not have been. No wonder Kate was annoyed with God for not listening to her. She should have lodged a complaint with the representative in Rome.

If it was a bump on the head it's a white flag, somebody else's fault. God in this case.

Mr & Mrs leave no stone unturned when it comes to blame game from bin men to God! No heavenly protection policy with the big man he only guarantees a hearing... but they could 'get the strength of the insurance companies around them'...at least they'll be compensated. Compensation always closest to their hearts...
some oldies:
Legal & General insurance, c.1980)
Legal & General cover the things you care for.
General Accident Insurance: 1985
When it comes to Life Insurance you can’t afford to take risks — so talk to General Accident. In an uncertain world, it could well be your best policy!
Commercial Union Insurance: early 1980s
We won’t make a drama out of a crisis.

by **tigger** 30.03.14 9:11

Watching wrote:
tigger wrote:
Woofer wrote:That they`re God fearing Catholics.

P.S. sorry to be facitious - this thread is actually a good idea.

Not so much 'fearig' as 'bothering'.

See the book and Dr.Roberts' 'A tense situation'.

Kate had asked God for protection in specific situations and God had protected the family from bumps on the head and car accidents. but not from abduction, because Kate had failed to specify that contingency.

i believe that she's also said - possibly in the radio interview with Aled Jones - that she was annoyed with God. Making the Almighty more like a supermarket where one can expect whatever is ordered to arrive.
So specific protection asked for: bumps on the head and car accidents. We can be fairly sure that the protection from car accident was delivered as demanded, the bump on the head protection may not have been. No wonder Kate was annoyed with God for not listening to her. She should have lodged a complaint with the representative in Rome.

If it was a bump on the head it's a white flag, somebody else's fault. God in this case.

Mr & Mrs leave no stone unturned when it comes to blame game from bin men to God! No heavenly protection policy with the big man he only guarantees a hearing... but they could 'get the strength of the insurance companies around them'...at least they'll be compensated. Compensation always closest to their hearts...
some oldies:
Legal & General insurance, c.1980)
Legal & General cover the things you care for.
General Accident Insurance: 1985
When it comes to Life Insurance you can’t afford to take risks — so talk to General Accident. In an uncertain world, it could well be your best policy!
Commercial Union Insurance: early 1980s
We won’t make a drama out of a crisis.

H, that brings us to Clarence Mitchell's statement on the blue bag: (not litt. quote) 'they came back with everything they took, except Madeleine'.
So what do you think, does that come under travel insurance?

by Bishop Brennan 30.03.14 12:15

Returning to the op question about white flags - things that might suggest innocence. I would put forward the fact that the body has never been found. If Amaral was right and they did conceal a body, this was a tough task. Unfamiliar with PDL, no transport, little time.

Of course this particular white flag became somewhat muddied with Gerry's infamous snarl to the world to "find the body and prove we killed her."

PS. Perhaps another possible thread there? Things I bet they wish they had never said...

by **tigger** 30.03.14 15:50

Bishop Brennan wrote:Returning to the op question about white flags - things that might suggest innocence. I would put forward the fact that the body has never been found. If Amaral was right and they did conceal a body, this was a tough task. Unfamiliar with PDL, no transport, little time.

Of course this particular white flag became somewhat muddied with Gerry's infamous snarl to the world to "find the body and prove we killed her."

PS. Perhaps another possible thread there? Things I bet they wish they had never said...

Many of those can be found in the Forensic Linguistics thread, but to see motormouth Gerry in full flow, the transcript of the Vanity Fair interview is favourite. E.g. In sept 07 he admits to interviewer that Madeleine could well be dead.
Forensic Linguistics page one start with a slip-up from that interview.

As to other things they wish they'd never said - 'I do?' Or 'we're doctors - of course the sardine munchers are going to believe us..'

by **sharonl** 30.03.14 16:46

tigger wrote:
Watching wrote:
tigger wrote:
Woofer wrote:That they`re God fearing Catholics.

P.S. sorry to be facitious - this thread is actually a good idea.

Not so much 'fearig' as 'bothering'.

See the book and Dr.Roberts' 'A tense situation'.

Kate had asked God for protection in specific situations and God had protected the family from bumps on the head and car accidents. but not from abduction, because Kate had failed to specify that contingency.

i believe that she's also said - possibly in the radio interview with Aled Jones - that she was annoyed with God. Making the Almighty more like a supermarket where one can expect whatever is ordered to arrive.
So specific protection asked for: bumps on the head and car accidents. We can be fairly sure that the protection from car accident was delivered as demanded, the bump on the head protection may not have been. No wonder Kate was annoyed with God for not listening to her. She should have lodged a complaint with the representative in Rome.

If it was a bump on the head it's a white flag, somebody else's fault. God in this case.

Mr & Mrs leave no stone unturned when it comes to blame game from bin men to God! No heavenly protection policy with the big man he only guarantees a hearing... but they could 'get the strength of the insurance companies around them'...at least they'll be compensated. Compensation always closest to their hearts...
some oldies:
Legal & General insurance, c.1980)
Legal & General cover the things you care for.
General Accident Insurance: 1985
When it comes to Life Insurance you can’t afford to take risks — so talk to General Accident. In an uncertain world, it could well be your best policy!
Commercial Union Insurance: early 1980s
We won’t make a drama out of a crisis.

H, that brings us to Clarence Mitchell's statement on the blue bag: (not litt. quote) 'they came back with everything they took, except Madeleine'.
So what do you think, does that come under travel insurance?

They came back with EVERYTHING that that they took, really?

What about that old picture of Madeleine that they gave to the police shortly after the "abduction"? They may not have brought it back but did they take it with them? If so, why? If not, how did they get hold of it at short notice?

by **sharonl** 30.03.14 17:18

One of the greatest white flags is that we have heard directly from a well respected government official, the former head of the governments' media monitoring unit, that:

Kate and Gerry McCann were not responsible for Madeleines' death

This is backed up by Gerry saying the exact thing, and both Kate and Gerry declaring that they were certain of each other's innocence.

by **PeterMac** 30.03.14 17:39

sharonl wrote:One of the greatest white flags is that we have heard directly from a well respected government official, the former head of the governments' media monitoring unit, that:
Kate and Gerry McCann were not responsible for Madeleines' death
This is backed up by Gerry saying the exact thing, and both Kate and Gerry declaring that they were certain of each other's innocence.

That for me is one of the greatest RED flags.
Not many people think they were responsible for Madeleine's death - (in the sense of homicide / murder / manslaughter and so on.
Though clearly involved in the negligence aspects / failing to prevent accident / failing to prevent "abduction" and so on.)

And then to use the strange expression "convinced of each other's 'innocence" ! ! ! Begging the question - Of What, precisely ?

Yo can not be innocent of an accident, be innocent of not having done something,
YO can only be innocent of a specific crime or offence.

by tungsten tel 30.03.14 17:51

The only white flag im interested in is the one waved by this obnoxious group of people when they grow a pair and hold their hands up and admit the truth of what happened in PDL .

by kimHager 31.03.14 1:40

by tigger Yesterday at 8:09 am

Woofer wrote: “ That they`re God fearing Catholics.

P.S. sorry to be facitious - this thread is actually a good idea.

Not so much 'fearig' as 'bothering'.

See the book and Dr.Roberts' 'A tense situation'.

Kate had asked God for protection in specific situations and God had protected the family from bumps on the head and car accidents. but not from abduction, because Kate had failed to specify that contingency.

i believe that she's also said - possibly in the radio interview with Aled Jones - that she was annoyed with God. Making the Almighty more like a supermarket where one can expect whatever is ordered to arrive. So specific protection asked for: bumps on the head and car accidents. We can be fairly sure that the protection from car accident was delivered as demanded, the bump on the head protection may not have been. No wonder Kate was annoyed with God for not listening to her. She should have lodged a complaint with the representative in Rome.

If it was a bump on the head it's a white flag, somebody else's fault. God in this case.

I believe she prayed no bumps on the head because it MAY be the way a child would die from complications.... And a car accident because you wouldn't want to explain the body in the boot if you're in an accident. Also accidents=breathalizer and/or drug test

White flags? The only way I'd believe them is if a very alive Maddy is found. I don't see it happening.. But hey to the alleged abductor... Let Maddy come home now so we can prove there innocence.,...... Silence.....

by kimHager 31.03.14 1:42

Admin can you fix my post please as uneasy my first attempt at copying quotes like this and it didn't work Sad

sorry!

by **tigger** 31.03.14 7:03

kimHager wrote:Admin can you fix my post please as uneasy my first attempt at copying quotes like this and it didn't work :(sorry!

You just click on the 'quote' in top right corner. I now have to wait a bit before the quote turns yellow in the answer box. Must be iPad as it was quicker on laptop.

So that's probably it. Thanks for pointing it out - roses

by Gillyspot 31.03.14 7:33

View-from-Ireland wrote:That they didn't just let the story die year ago.

This is the one thing that plays on my mind.They have seemingly tried everything possible to keep it alive. Now I understand that it could be some psychological desire to be caught so that their intelligence would be revealed, but it is one to ponder.

One thing that bothered me too, but I came to the conclusion that they need to keep it high profile (feed the tabloids with their side) to stop the red tops sharing FACTS eg Gaspar Statement, Changing Timelines etc. IMO if the McCanns stop feeding the media they will carry their OWN stories and not toe the McCann party line.

by Guest 31.03.14 9:35

The one thing which really stood out for me that was a bit of a high risk thing to have done, was for Gerry, not Kate to have telephoned and spoken first to the frail and sick Brian Healey, rather than convey the message to Susan Healey) at an unforgiving time of night. This might suggest that Kate truly was unable to do this at that time, athough admittedly, she recovered later sufficiently to telephone friends and tell them herself. Surely the shock could have had a bad effect on Brian? What if he had had a heart attack or it had worsened his Parkinsons Disease. I think even in a hysterical state most people would think twice about ringing such a sick and fairly elderly person. For someone to have done that does this smack of genuine desperation and perhaps indicate that Kate and Gerry were both not functioning normally or rationally due to shock?

by j.rob 31.03.14 15:35

I think it is astonishing beyond belief that Kate and Gerry were calling for an independent investigative review (Kate's book - May 2011).

"We are still pressing the British and Portugese governments to do more, or at least something."

Still, the fact that the review was not carried out meant - "we will be left with no alternative but to seek disclosure of all information possessed by the authorities relating to Madeleine's disappearance."

"And as we know there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest she has come to any harm, other than as a result of being separated from her family."

What planet is this women on? I think a psychiatrist could have a field day with her.

Still, as she writes: "There are many examples of abducted children being recovered years later......How many more children are out there waiting to be found?"

I really do think that Kate's stance can only make an ounce of sense (although she is incredibly narcissistic, imo) if one considers the scenario that the intention was for Madeleine to 'disappear' alive - in other words the intention to fake an abduction of an alive but sedated Madeleine (a more elaborate Shannon Matthews plot).

But there was an accident and Madeleine either died in the apartment or near the apartment and her body was brought back while they decided what to do with it (sniffer dogs).

They did not admit to the accident as to have done so would have uncovered things they wished to conceal, imo (and not just neglect as that was self-evident which ever way the story went). Plus it would have de-railed their 'wider agenda'. Gerry was too greedy, imo, and narcissistic enough to think he would get away with it.

This would explain - to a point - the folie de grandeur that they are exhibiting. They simply cannot let go of a certain script.

Hence both Kate and Gerry's obsession with the idea that, one day, their daughter might return. They will not even admit to themselves that this will not happen, let alone anyone else.