Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

[2011-2012] What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Options
1…68101112

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Silver Moon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    The DNA/blood alerts were made by British dogs, operating under the instruction of a British dog handler who was recommended by the uppermost advisor to the British police and the results were examined in a British laboratory.

    You can see in photo atached the spots where one of the dogs alerted to in the main living area in apartment 5a. None of those marks were visible to the human eye – they have been circled for photographic purposes.

    The dogs were taken to a number of apartments – they only one they alerted in was 5a.

    The dogs were shown around several vehicles – the only one they alerted to was the one driven by the McCanns.

    The dogs were shown a large number of items of clothing – the only ones they alerted to were directly associated with the McCanns.

    Coincidence?


  • Options
    #213
    muincav
    Registered Users Posts: 810 ✭✭✭muincav


    goat2 wrote: »
    the where the dad found her and went back partying, is a big no no, not a hope in the world would any half decent parent do that, and keep it up for all this time that he had nothing to do with it, he would have cracked long time ago,

    But then again what "half decent parent(s)" would have left their children in the apartment? I for one would NEVER do that and that is why I will never believe the Mc Cann's story. They actually thought it was ok to leave their kids there, or was this all part of the lie?


  • Options
    #214
    angwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭angwd


    I don't buy that 9 adults left 8 children home alone. There was an adult missing from the Tapas every night. I think it's a safe bet they were the designated babysitters.


  • Options
    #215
    tj2011
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭tj2011


    angwd wrote: »
    I don't buy that 9 adults left 8 children home alone. There was an adult missing from the Tapas every night. I think it's a safe bet they were the designated babysitters.
    Yeah, right! ;) So which one was babysitting that night for "all" the kids in all the apartments? and if so, why did Gerry go to check on the kids that they said they had left alone?..


  • Options
    #216
    CyberJuice
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭CyberJuice


    was the fridge freezer jerry dumped ever founnd? i saw on some link a few posts back that the fridge was found by a PI but no more is said about it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    angwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭angwd


    Perhaps he was taking food to the designated babysitter or one of his children couldn't settle? It's a very lame story and I don't buy it. If you read through the witness statements they say that they insisted they'd be put in nearby apartments so they could share childminding yet there are 9 adults who chose to leave 8 children under the age of 4 home alone in the dark with doors open so they could dine in an otherwise empty Tapas bar, same bar does carry out food? To me it's nowhere near logical.


  • Options
    #218
    MonkieSocks
    Registered Users Posts: 8,259 ✭✭✭MonkieSocks


    CyberJuice wrote: »
    was the fridge freezer jerry dumped ever founnd? i saw on some link a few posts back that the fridge was found by a PI but no more is said about it


    Don't know if it was ever found.......there are even reports that it was a Brand new Fridge Freezer.

    http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com/2011/05/hubbardsthe-fridge-freezer-was-it-myth.html

    =(:-) Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude (-:)=



  • Options
    #219
    Chicke
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Chicke


    The prob for me is the timelines .
    I don't believe in a conspiracy by the rest of the tapas 7 to protect the mcanns from the fact that they killed their child being known to the police.
    There was no reason to be lying for the mcanns and everything to lose.
    Therefore, mcann was back in the restaurant at 10 and so the smyths evidence of seeing gmccann at the beach at that time must have been wrong


  • Options
    #220
    Silver Moon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    the Tapas 7 were all neglecting their children in the same was the McCanns and as they were also all professional couples with reputations to protect I can fully accept that they would have colluded with the McCanns to concoct a timeline covering up the accidental death of Madeleine. The evidence of the two timelines written on the inside cover of one of Madeleine's book does indeed suggest that there was collective agreement (i.e. collusion).


  • Options
    #221
    Chicke
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Chicke


    Trying to cover up the fact that they were negligent in the care of their own kids is one thing but covering up the accidental death of another unrelated child is completely different .why would they do that? They have nothing to gain from covering that up but everything to lose if they are found out to be complicit in manslaughter.
    I believe that they certainly lied about the timing of their visits to check on their kids as they didn't want to appear to be negligent.charming people the lot!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    angwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭angwd


    I didn't believe that the T7 would be involved in a conspiracy either. It's a hard thing to accept, Chicke especially when as you say they have so much to lose. But reading through the rogatory interviews is really interesting. These 7 professional people seem to turn into erm, you know, tut, em very different people. It takes a bit of time to read but very worthwhile.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm


  • Options
    #223
    Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Oracle


    A poll on this thread would be interesting.


  • Options
    #224
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    For people who think Gerry disposed of the body, what could he have done with it? How could he have disposed of her body so well (in a short space of time) that it's never been found? It doesn't seem likely, though admittedly it's not impossible.

    Not sure which side of the fence I'd be on here. There's no solid evidence of them causing her death or covering it up. Yet there's little evidence of any abduction either, just their word. Either way I'd say it's very unlikely that she's still alive. But the idea that they might have inadvertently caused her death and then covered it up is not implausible.


  • Options
    #225
    CyberJuice
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭CyberJuice


    wether or not they have killed the child, or the kid was abducted like they claim,they should at least be locked up for a couple of years for leaving children unatended every night


  • Options
    #226
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    CyberJuice wrote: »
    wether or not they have killed the child, or the kid was abducted like they claim,they should at least be locked up for a couple of years for leaving children unatended every night

    What would that achieve exactly? Madeleine would still be missing, the other two children would be left without their parents and a grieving couple would be locked up with murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Give me a break! They have suffered enough.


    On another note, it struck me while reading about the Levinson enquiry into phone hacking, how the McCanns had also been victims of this practice.

    Surely the papers would have some juicy details about the McCanns supposed involvement if they were privy to their private phone conversations, yet nothing at all has emerged about their complicity in the disappearance....perhaps because they were not complicit at all?


  • Options
    #227
    Silver Moon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    the press did not hack the phones of the McCanns


  • Options
    #228
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    dark crystal wrote: »
    What would that achieve exactly? Madeleine would still be missing, the other two children would be left without their parents and a grieving couple would be locked up with murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Give me a break! They have suffered enough.


    On another note, it struck me while reading about the Levinson enquiry into phone hacking, how the McCanns had also been victims of this practice.

    Surely the papers would have some juicy details about the McCanns supposed involvement if they were privy to their private phone conversations, yet nothing at all has emerged about their complicity in the disappearance....perhaps because they were not complicit at all?

    And the McCanns would obviously discuss on a phone all the gory details of how they mistakenly killed their daughter and hid her body, if that is the case.

    A few things about this case don't add up, a mother refusing to answer questions about her missing daughter, the British dogs smelling a corpse in a few locations including a car rented a week later, the discarded fridge and peadopayne sucking his finger while stroking his nipple.

    Actually there's a few more things already discussed and other things that make me not believe the McCanns version of accounts.


  • Options
    #229
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    stuar wrote: »
    Actually there's a few more things already discussed and other things that make me not believe the McCanns version of accounts.

    It reminds me of some Druid ceremonies and sacrifice.


  • Options
    #230
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    stuar wrote: »
    And the McCanns would obviously discuss on a phone all the gory details of how they mistakenly killed their daughter and hid her body, if that is the case.

    I agree that it is most unlikely that they would do so. But then you have to ask what is the big deal about the deleted phone records? This is often cited as evidence that the McCanns were somehow involved
    stuar wrote: »
    A few things about this case don't add up

    a mother refusing to answer questions about her missing daughter

    Not really. At the time the dog evidence has been revealed, evidence that is not easy to explain if the McCanns were innocent. Surely the possibility crossed Kate’s mind that she was been set up by investigators who were making little progress in finding their daughter? And if they succeeded, they would formally close the case and stop searching for her. Surely in this scenario, for both herself and her daughter, it was sensible for Kate to listen to her legal, if not media, advisor, and decline to help the police with their devious pursuit?
    stuar wrote: »
    the British dogs smelling a corpse in a few locations including a car rented a week later

    Yes, this is very good evidence and the only real evidence against the McCanns IMO. Although it does beg the question as to where the body was hidden. Not an unanswerable question, but one that needs an explanation.
    stuar wrote: »
    the discarded fridge

    Are you sure there is any truth in this fridge story? And if there is, it is really credibly that Gerry McCann would casually tell the world about a fridge that he used to conceal a body.
    stuar wrote: »
    peadopayne sucking his finger while stroking his nipple.

    The difficulty here is that it requires us to believe that a couple of paedophiles would candidly discuss such matters in front of a witness who plainly was not sympathetic to their deviances. It is possible but extremely unlikely I think. It is not far more likely that the witness who reported this, simply misinterpreted what was going on?
    stuar wrote: »
    Actually there's a few more things already discussed and other things that make me not believe the McCanns version of accounts.

    The question of interest for me is whether or not the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter (whether or not they are being entirely honest is a different question). And dogs aside, I think there is little else of evidential value that implicates the McCanns.


  • Options
    #231
    Mistyeyes321
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    I have said this before & will say it again, Why are ppl so convinced these timelines are the truth the whole truth & nothing but the truth?:confused: Just because the Mcanns & co say it was this way means absolutly nothing:eek:
    Could these parents have been involved with this childs disappearance, Yes! Only a fool would dismiss this as unreasonable.!
    Could one of their friends have been responsible for this child disppearing. Yes. Again it's common knowledge most rapes or Murders are committed by someone the victim knows!
    However I do find it a very long leap for all parties to be involed & covering up for eachother! Yes I think alot that has been said by the Tapas 9 sounds like Ballcocks & probably is just that:pac:
    I do have to also point out I think the PJ have also talked alot of Ballcocks too.!
    So we're left with evidence, Does any of it exist? The dogs I believe because they don't know how to lie they just have a job to do & do it!
    Could the PJ have planted stuff for the Dogs to find?:eek:, I believe it's possible, But why would they do that? & where would they find this DNA or blood to plant?!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    angwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭angwd


    Mistyeyes321 wrote: »
    I have said this before & will say it again, Why are ppl so convinced these timelines are the truth the whole truth & nothing but the truth?:confused: Just because the Mcanns & co say it was this way means absolutly nothing:eek:
    Could these parents have been involved with this childs disappearance, Yes! Only a fool would dismiss this as unreasonable.!
    Could one of their friends have been responsible for this child disppearing. Yes. Again it's common knowledge most rapes or Murders are committed by someone the victim knows!
    However I do find it a very long leap for all parties to be involed & covering up for eachother! Yes I think alot that has been said by the Tapas 9 sounds like Ballcocks & probably is just that:pac:
    I do have to also point out I think the PJ have also talked alot of Ballcocks too.!
    So we're left with evidence, Does any of it exist? The dogs I believe because they don't know how to lie they just have a job to do & do it!
    Could the PJ have planted stuff for the Dogs to find?:eek:, I believe it's possible, But why would they do that? & where would they find this DNA or blood to plant?!

    Why are people convinced that the hard earned cash they spent on the fund has been spent on finding Madeleine? Because the McCann's say so? Where is the book advance that she received? it's not in the 2011 fund.. It's entirely possible for anyone to have planted the dogs evidence. However that doesn't alter any of the glaring discrepancies created by the McCanns and the T7. If you go according to their "evidence" of an "abduction" it's logistically impossible yet nobody questions it.


  • Options
    #233
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Mistyeyes321 wrote: »
    However I do find it a very long leap for all parties ... cut

    Indeed, time should be showing more links of their bonds and depth of friendship.


  • Options
    #234
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    angwd wrote: »
    Why are people convinced that the hard earned cash they spent on the fund has been spent on finding Madeleine? Because the McCann's say so? Where is the book advance that she received? it's not in the 2011 fund.

    The title of the thread is “What really happened to Madeleine McCann?” I fail to see how the McCanns conduct themselves in relation to the fund has any bearing on this question?
    angwd wrote: »
    However that doesn't alter any of the glaring discrepancies created by the McCanns and the T7.

    But the question to ask is what do these “glaring discrepancies” indicate? And for me, the one thing that they clearly do NOT indicate is a conspiracy. Surely if there was an arrangement between some within the group to try and cover up Madeleine’s death they would have taken a couple of minutes to sketch out “testimonies” which were at least broadly compatible?

    Perhaps there was a ham-fisted, and misguided attempt by some of the seven, on their own initiative, to try and protect their friends. And if that were the case, then it is not very admirable behaviour. But it’s a long jump from that to suggest that they know something, or were even involved, in Madeleine’ s disappearance.
    angwd wrote: »
    If you go according to their "evidence" ….
    Which I don’t. Nor do I think anyone should. It is largely the people who think they are guilty that insist we take account of what they think happened.
    They don’t know what happened! Unless ….. :)

    angwd wrote: »
    …. of an "abduction" it's logistically impossible ….

    Impossible? Why on earth would you say it is impossible?
    angwd wrote: »
    ….yet nobody questions it.
    Nobody, apart from the large number (and growing! :() of people who think the McCanns were involved. They question (very scornfully!) the abduction theory all the time. :)


  • Options
    #235
    deelite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭deelite


    The timeline issue - who apart from the family/friends saw madeline alive last. The reason I ask is my neighbour has a few kids but I can't which one is which. And were any holiday photos released from the day she disappeared.


  • Options
    #236
    Mistyeyes321
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    angwd wrote: »
    Why are people convinced that the hard earned cash they spent on the fund has been spent on finding Madeleine? Because the McCann's say so? Where is the book advance that she received? it's not in the 2011 fund.. It's entirely possible for anyone to have planted the dogs evidence. However that doesn't alter any of the glaring discrepancies created by the McCanns and the T7. If you go according to their "evidence" of an "abduction" it's logistically impossible yet nobody questions it.

    I didn't know about the book advance:confused: nor whether it was in the 2011 fund:confused: This may sound a tad silly, But was it supposed to be for that fund? or their own private use?!
    I have read some of the statements from the tapas 9 & I do agree that there does seem to be alot of discrepancies infact quite alot....Is this not normal though with witnesses?!
    I have questioned the abduction theory & so have alot of ppl on this thread & the last thread before we was moved to here,!
    This whole case sounds more & more like the magic roundabout as time passes & still the same ppl are asking the same questions.
    I do think this timeline shouldn't be believed as gospel...:)

    I do wonder what possible motive mrs gasper would possible have to make a false statement to the police too?! I don't get this at all why would a person who has everything to lose by making up something so vile why would she say it if she wasn't convinced of what she saw & heard?!


  • Options
    #237
    Mistyeyes321
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    lugha wrote: »
    The title of the thread is “What really happened to Madeleine McCann?” I fail to see how the McCanns conduct themselves in relation to the fund has any bearing on this question?



    But the question to ask is what do these “glaring discrepancies” indicate? And for me, the one thing that they clearly do NOT indicate is a conspiracy. Surely if there was an arrangement between some within the group to try and cover up Madeleine’s death they would have taken a couple of minutes to sketch out “testimonies” which were at least broadly compatible?

    Perhaps there was a ham-fisted, and misguided attempt by some of the seven, on their own initiative, to try and protect their friends. And if that were the case, then it is not very admirable behaviour. But it’s a long jump from that to suggest that they know something, or were even involved, in Madeleine’ s disappearance.


    Which I don’t. Nor do I think anyone should. It is largely the people who think they are guilty that insist we take account of what they think happened.
    They don’t know what happened! Unless ….. :)




    Impossible? Why on earth would you say it is impossible?


    Nobody, apart from the large number (and growing! :() of people who think the McCanns were involved. They question (very scornfully!) the abduction theory all the time. :)

    Hey Lugha your last comment I actually agree with for a change:pac: See not all is impossible, Who would have thunked that?:pac: Happy new year btw:)


  • Options
    #238
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Mistyeyes321 wrote: »
    Hey Lugha your last comment I actually agree with for a change:pac: See not all is impossible, Who would have thunked that?:pac: Happy new year btw:)
    Same to you! See I knew I would win you over eventually! :) Give it a couple of months and I’ll have you defending the McCanns to the hilt :P
    Mistyeyes321 wrote: »
    I do wonder what possible motive mrs gasper would possible have to make a false statement to the police too?! I don't get this at all why would a person who has everything to lose by making up something so vile why would she say it if she wasn't convinced of what she saw & heard?!
    False dichotomy. You imply that either Mrs Gasper correctly interpreted what she saw, or she is a liar! There is no suggestion that Mrs Gasper is anything other than an honest upstanding citizen. The suggestion is that she misunderstood what she witnessed, not that she fabricated it.

    She did not report is at the time, which would suggest that she was far from convinced that what she witnessed had no innocent explanation. (Wouldn’t you, or any moral person, immediately report such a thing if you were convinced that you interpreted what you witnessed correctly?). She reported in light of the disappearance of Madeline, and quite rightly so; the police always advise possible witnesses to report even what might seem to be insignificant, and let them decide if it has any evidential value.

    And of course, the major, major problem with this testimony, a problem that no one who is making the case against the McCanns has no far answered, is the matter of how you explain why a couple of child abusers would candidly discuss their deviances in front of someone who clearly was not sympathetic?

    If someone can come up with a plausible explanation for this last point (do you have one?) then it would certainly have evidential value. But until someone does, I will continue to think that a misinterpretation on Mrs Gasper’s part (something ALL of us do as one time or another) is the more likely explanation?


  • Options
    #239
    Mistyeyes321
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    lugha wrote: »
    Same to you! See I knew I would win you over eventually! :) Give it a couple of months and I’ll have you defending the McCanns to the hilt :P
    False dichotomy. You imply that either Mrs Gasper correctly interpreted what she saw, or she is a liar! There is no suggestion that Mrs Gasper is anything other than an honest upstanding citizen. The suggestion is that she misunderstood what she witnessed, not that she fabricated it.

    She did not report is at the time, which would suggest that she was far from convinced that what she witnessed had no innocent explanation. (Wouldn’t you, or any moral person, immediately report such a thing if you were convinced that you interpreted what you witnessed correctly?). She reported in light of the disappearance of Madeline, and quite rightly so; the police always advise possible witnesses to report even what might seem to be insignificant, and let them decide if it has any evidential value.

    And of course, the major, major problem with this testimony, a problem that no one who is making the case against the McCanns has no far answered, is the matter of how you explain why a couple of child abusers would candidly discuss their deviances in front of someone who clearly was not sympathetic?

    If someone can come up with a plausible explanation for this last point (do you have one?) then it would certainly have evidential value. But until someone does, I will continue to think that a misinterpretation on Mrs Gasper’s part (something ALL of us do as one time or another) is the more likely explanation?

    I agree after re reading back my post, It does sound like I make the claim she is either a Liar/ Truth teller.

    I don't think Mrs Gasper misunderstood what was being said at all & that is what I was trying to say to start with, But made a hash of it...:P Just a normal day for Moi,!
    Maybe Mrs Gasper wasn't sure if she had heard right, But then Madeline disappeared & it then convinced her she had infact heard right...We have all been in situations where something has happened to us & We're kind of sure we seen what we thought we had seen, But doubt creeps in & we find ourselves thinking did I really just see that?? for example, When I was a young girl I came home from the local youth club to find my home in darkness & entered the house & went into the lounge started to draw the curtains & was sure I had seen the guy across the road stark bollox naked stood on his bed Masturbating! Not a pretty sight I can assure you, When my sister arrived home I was stunned & told her what I thought I had seen, Of course she thought I was barking mad, We left it there never told our parent's, Then it became aparent that anytime I came home & turned my bedroom light on, The perv across the road, Would jump on his bed & do the same again! So I was in a situation of should I have rang the Police straightaway? What if I was wrong & this poor guy across the road wasn't a perv after all. It's called benifit of doubt..You see we have all been in situations similar to that, Maybe on a smaller scale etc but sure you get my drift?!
    I wouldn't have a clue why Mr Mccann & Mr Payne would talk so openly in front of someone who wasn't sympathetic, "Maybe they thought she was sympathetic " I don't know them, "Mrs Gasper does though"! & I don't think she would make that up out of nowhere, She hasn't made that statement lightly as you rightly say...Btw, Wasn't some reference made to her husband "Mr Gasper" Regarding, Bathtime & the men doing the childrens bathing? Wasn't Mrs Gasper uncomfortable with this arrangement?! I could have read that wrong so don't take it as gospel btw.!


  • Options
    #240
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Mistyeyes321 wrote: »
    Maybe Mrs Gasper wasn't sure if she had heard right, But then Madeline disappeared & it then convinced her she had in fact heard right. We have all been in situations where something has happened to us & We're kind of sure we seen what we thought we had seen, But doubt creeps in & we find ourselves thinking did I really just see that??
    Yes, this "rethinking in light of new knowledge" does happen and I think is what happened here. And my suggestion is, not that she misheard (I think she probably heard correctly alright) but that she misinterpreted what she did hear.

    But this is not the problem I have with this as a piece of evidence. The really big problem is this.
    Mistyeyes321 wrote: »
    I wouldn't have a clue why Mr Mccann & Mr Payne would talk so openly in front of someone who wasn't sympathetic
    Neither do I, nor I have anyone offer a convincing explanation. And for me, that puts a major question mark over the relevance of this testimony.

    It potentially might have been a very useful facet of information in unveiling the truth of what happened to Madeline (it offers a possible, and very good, reason why the McCanns would not want Madeleine’s body to be found). Unfortunately it throws up a difficult question, which nobody can satisfactorily answer (Why would child abusers candidly discuss their deviances?) and until someone can, the Gasper evidence is seriously undermined.

    This is not the only example in this case where a possible explanation of what might have happened is undermined by a question which needs to be answered but nobody satisfactorily can.

    For example, there was at one stage a suggestion that an intruder came in through the window. The problem with that suggestion is of course that it was widely agreed that it would be almost impossible for an intruder to so do without leaving any evidence. So the difficult question here is why would an intruder take the extraordinary trouble to ensure that they left no evidence of coming through the window?

    I don’t have a good answer. I have heard no one else offer a good (or even a bad!) answer. Therefore, like most people, I more or less dismiss this particular scenario.

    Presumably you would be less that impressed with someone who argued that they believed that an intruder DID some through the window but “didn’t have a clue” as to why they were able to (and took the trouble to) avoid leaving evidence?

    Surely, in the interests of fairness you should have the same standards for evidence that is in the McCanns favour as you do for evidence that is against them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    lugha wrote: »
    Unfortunately it throws up a difficult question, which nobody can satisfactorily answer (Why would child abusers candidly discuss their deviances?) and until someone can, the Gasper evidence is seriously undermined.
    to gloat. a lot of criminals will talk about what they've done (and until then gotten away with) in roundabout ways in front of people who would be against them, even to the police.
    they often feel that since they have gotten away with it, that they are far superior than the authorities.
    because they can carefully phrase comments so that while everyone may get the same subtext, they can feign innocence if challenged on it.

    the other possibility is that they are idiots, and idiots talk to much :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement