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

Madeleine McCann

Options
1…241242244246247…264

Comments

  • Options
    #7292
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    OK


    Lets look at what happened

    <<-->>
    His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible. When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconically, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous.
    <<-->>

    So he makes a joke about the dogs. This is in relation to the dogs been used as evidence. Now I don't know about you. But if my daughter was missing I would want the dogs to be able to help. I would be very grateful of Mr.Grimes and thank for any help they could provide.

    What see her from Mrs.McCann is. Can I call it relief without been asked for proof? or maybe you tell me. When she said he was right (the joke he made)

    What is this reaction?

    To me it's odd for a number of reasons. It's dismissive of a Martin and dismissive of the dogs. These are being brought into help. Why be dismissive?

    That in itself is "odd"

    The fact he was a child rapist sitting in his dressing gown drinking brandy just adds a bizzare sense of theartre that only the McCanns seem to generate.

    I see it as odd.

    You do not.

    That's opinion. not right or wrong.

    Would that be more falsities and fabrications. At that point, they were suspects by the Portugues police. And the dogs could be used for the police to try to stitch them up. All focus at that stage was on the McCanns and aligning them as the guilty parties. The dogs were initially brought in to help find the child. But now the inconclusive and unreliable findings of the dog reports could be used to try to incorrectly incriminate the parents.
    Of course, there would be some relief if it is suggested that that cannot happen.

    But you know all of this already. Just moving the goalposts again.


  • Options
    #7293
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Ah yes I see your thinking, thanks for eventually clarifying..

    So you find it odd that Kate didn’t want the dogs to be used in court, the dogs who were supposedly alerting that a corpse was in the apt, the wardrobe and the McCanns hire car.. in court for presumably a case against the McCanns? You don’t find it perfectly reasonable that she wouldn’t want them used in court against her?

    The woman is obviously under enormous stress, she’s having dinner and drinks with a friend who is trying to lighten her mood. And yes I agree it probably was relief in her reaction, it’s not odd to be relieved that something can’t be used against you in court while being accused of a crime you didn’t commit. (Not saying she didn’t commit a crime)

    And the McCanns didn’t generate this bit of Theatre at all, Freud reached out to them, Freud was in his dressing gown.

    Why would the dog alerting in the apartment implicate the McCanns?

    I've said before I don't know enough about the dogs. If the dog alerting was right is the only outcome from that they did it?

    Or is there other possibilities ?


  • Options
    #7294
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    Ok. So CallMeHal has crept back under his rock because he has no answers. Can you provide the "evidence" that shows there was the laughing and joking by the McCanns. I think it was you who initiated that comment. Or is it going to be the same from you - "couldn't be bothered", "read it yourself" etc. etc.
    THere was no laughing and joking. You just made this up to suit the agenda; trying to portray that the parents were off having a good time.
    Stop hanging on to the irrelevant issues that were investigated over a decade ago. Keep up to date. Read the recent events re the CB character. And not be on about your perception of odd behaviour, having odd friends, getting into odd situations etc.
    It's not the McCanns who are odd.

    I did answer. If you read what I quoted it's clear they were laughing and joking and having a merry old time. There's nothing difficult in the quote. All very easy to understand.


  • Options
    #7295
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Why would the dog alerting in the apartment implicate the McCanns?

    I've said before I don't know enough about the dogs. If the dog alerting was right is the only outcome from that they did it?

    Or is there other possibilities ?

    Of course there is, but the dog alerted at their hire car and the dogs were and still are being talked about as ‘evidence’ pointing to the McCanns. They had also been told they were suspects, so surely you can understand her not wanting the dogs used in court against her.

    If I’m in court accused of something I didn’t do I would be relieved if the prosecutions key witness or piece of evidence couldn’t be used. So not odd behaviour at all.

    And before you ask, I was found not guilty on all charges!


  • Options
    #7296
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Of course there is, but the dog alerted at their hire car and the dogs were and still are being talked about as ‘evidence’ pointing to the McCanns. They had also been told they were suspects, so surely you can understand her not wanting the dogs used in court against her.

    Sure, but the dog could alert at the car, it be for Madeline and her never been in the car. Right?
    Rock77 wrote: »
    If I’m in court accused of something I didn’t do I would be relieved if the prosecutions key witness or piece of evidence couldn’t be used. So not odd behaviour at all.

    And before you ask, I was found not guilty on all charges!

    But what if the dog was right, she was murdered in the apartment

    Wouldn't you want the dogs to be able to help?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7297
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    Would that be more falsities and fabrications. At that point, they were suspects by the Portugues police. And the dogs could be used for the police to try to stitch them up. All focus at that stage was on the McCanns and aligning them as the guilty parties. The dogs were initially brought in to help find the child. But now the inconclusive and unreliable findings of the dog reports could be used to try to incorrectly incriminate the parents.
    Of course, there would be some relief if it is suggested that that cannot happen.

    But you know all of this already. Just moving the goalposts again.

    Why would the dogs be used to stitch them up? Someone might have killed Madeleine in the apartment. Why did the parents rule that possibility out?


  • Options
    #7298
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    I did answer. If you read what I quoted it's clear they were laughing and joking and having a merry old time. There's nothing difficult in the quote. All very easy to understand.

    The “he raised their spirits by making fun of the sniffer dogs”, is an interjection from whoever wrote that article or blogpost or whatever it is from wherever you’ve pulled it from. This is not a quote from the book, it is the opinion of whoever wrote the piece. So I’ll ask again, where did Kate write in her book that the three of them laughed about the dogs not being able to take the stand?


  • Options
    #7299
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    callmehal wrote: »
    Why would the dogs be used to stitch them up? Someone might have killed Madeleine in the apartment. Why did the parents rule that possibility out?

    It's hilarious when someone scoffs at MI5 been in on protecting them are so quick to accuse another police force of stitching someone up


  • Options
    #7300
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    limnam wrote: »
    It's hilarious when someone scoffs at MI5 been in on protecting them are so quick to accuse another police force of stitching someone up

    It's very odd!

    They immediately ruled out someone else killing Madeleine in the apartment and then as you pointed out, they were amused by the other peado joking about it.


  • Options
    #7301
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Why would the dogs be used to stitch them up? Someone might have killed Madeleine in the apartment. Why did the parents rule that possibility out?

    Thankfully they got better legal advice than what you'd be telling them.
    Like I said, they had become the chief suspects. And the dogs could be used as incriminating evidence against them. Nobody else was on the police radar at that time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7302
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    You're right.

    Leaving your child alone which looks like led to her possibly been raped and murdered.

    Perfectly run of the mill normal parent behavior.

    If protecting my kids from child rapists makes me odd.

    I'm all kinds of crazy

    You don't have kids.


  • Options
    #7303
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    Thankfully they got better legal advice than what you'd be telling them.
    Like I said, they had become the chief suspects. And the dogs could be used as incriminating evidence against them. Nobody else was on the police radar at that time.

    Why did the parents rule out the possibility that someone else killed their child in the apartment?


  • Options
    #7304
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Rock77 wrote: »
    I think this is where the disconnect is to be honest, to suspect the parents of something so horrific most people would need some sort of evidence or at least some sort reason.

    This web of lies you talk about is all just inconsistencies in different peoples statements, people remember things differently.

    Over time people start to second guess their own memory.

    I for one am still searching for something to make me even a little suspicious of the parents.. closest thing so far is the dogs

    The deleted calls (which don't save memory). It's very easy to find issues with the defense.


  • Options
    #7305
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    Why did the parents rule out the possibility that someone else killed their child in the apartment?

    I've never seen anywhere that they ruled that out. I'd be surprised if they said that when they don't know what happened.


  • Options
    #7306
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    The deleted calls (which don't save memory). It's very easy to find issues with the defense.

    So we're back to dogs and phones again. :eek::eek:


  • Options
    #7307
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    It's hilarious when someone scoffs at MI5 been in on protecting them are so quick to accuse another police force of stitching someone up

    Well, Amaral was convicted of perjury and falsifying evidence in a separate child disappearance case, so that's documented. Not sure what evidence there is of MI5 BEING involved in a similar stitch-up?

    But out of curiosity, aren't you one of the posters suggesting Brueckner is being stitched up by the German police force?


  • Options
    #7308
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Well, Amaral was convicted of perjury and falsifying evidence in a separate child disappearance case, so that's documented. Not sure what evidence there is of MI5 BEING involved in a similar stitch-up?

    But out of curiosity, aren't you one of the posters suggesting Brueckner is being stitched up by the German police force?

    Amaral said he would be stitched up 12 months ago.

    I don't know CB from Adam to suggest he's been stiched up.

    I don't think I suggested MI5 was stiching anyone up.

    I said people scoff when people mention they were protecting the McCanns


  • Options
    #7309
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    In other news, the German appeal last night has lead to someone from Bavaria coming forward with info and details having recognised one of the phone numbers that was in contact with CB in the vicinity of the ocean club on the night Madeleine disappeared.

    It’s particularly interesting because Bavaria is where CB lived before he moved to Portugal. This is excellent progress and hopefully more info will come to light from the appeal.


  • Options
    #7310
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Amaral said he would be stitched up 12 months ago.

    I don't know CB from Adam to suggest he's been stiched up.

    I don't think I suggested MI5 was stiching anyone up.

    I said people scoff when people mention they were protecting the McCanns

    I guess Amaral would know all about stitching up wouldn’t he.


  • Options
    #7311
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Amaral said he would be stitched up 12 months ago.

    I don't know CB from Adam to suggest he's been stiched up.

    Ah ok, fair enough. I thought you were in agreement with Amaral that he was being scapegoated as a suspect. Apologies if I took that up incorrectly. Amaral wouldn't be someone I'd overly trust either!
    I don't think I suggested MI5 was stiching anyone up.

    I said people scoff when people mention they were protecting the McCanns

    I think people are scoffing more at suggestions of D notices and the like because there's no proof of that whatsoever and it's all a bit conspiracy-ish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7312
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    dark crystal wrote: »
    I think people are scoffing more at suggestions of D notices and the like because there's no proof of that whatsoever and it's all a bit conspiracy-ish.

    Was there not a chief who refused to take the case as he wouldn't be allowed to investigate them?


  • Options
    #7313
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    I've never seen anywhere that they ruled that out. I'd be surprised if they said that when they don't know what happened.

    They set out to discredit the dogs instead. Even joking about it with a peado.


  • Options
    #7314
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Was there not a chief who refused to take the case as he wouldn't be allowed to investigate them?

    That appears to be one detective who claims he received a call from a friend 'advising' him in what direction he believed the case would be directed. He did not get this order from his actual bosses. He appears to have decided not to lead the investigation based on that one phone call. There is no evidence he was given such orders by anyone actually heading the investigation, or if there is, he doesn't appear to have disclosed this.

    Again, people are not scoffing at this so much as the D notice type nonsense.


  • Options
    #7315
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    It's hilarious when someone scoffs at MI5 been in on protecting them are so quick to accuse another police force of stitching someone up

    Your not getting what I’m saying. I mean stitched up in the McCanns eyes.. I’m not saying the police are deliberately framing them. I’m saying if Kate is innocent of course she would be relieved if the dogs couldn’t be used AGAINST HER in court. You have to remember that these dogs were and are being used against the McCanns.


  • Options
    #7316
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    callmehal wrote: »
    They set out to discredit the dogs instead. Even joking about it with a peado.

    "It was so ordinary and comforting, a bit like going to see your grandad after a horrible day at school," McCann wrote.

    "He gave me one of his looks and a giant glass of brandy, and managed to get a smile out of me with his greeting: 'So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?'"

    And he raised their spirits by making fun of the sniffer dogs which had detected a suspicious scent in the family hire car, saying "So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?"

    "A couple of hours later, fortified by our brandies (it was my first-ever taste of the stuff), some useful snippets of advice and several amusing anecdotes, we left our friend feeling quite a bit better than we had when we'd arrived."

    These are your quotes. Where's the joking part by Gerry and Kate McCann.


  • Options
    #7317
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    dark crystal wrote: »
    That appears to be one detective who claims he received a call from a friend 'advising' him in what direction he believed the case would be directed. He did not get this order from his actual bosses. He appears to have decided not to lead the investigation based on that one phone call. There is no evidence he was given such orders by anyone actually heading the investigation, or if there is, he doesn't appear to have disclosed this.

    He was a fairly experienced guy IIRC.

    Someone of the street wouldn't have known this right and he trusted this person.

    Are we safe to assume he worked for them this "friend"?

    If that's the case and we're saying _this_ side are trustworthy I think it's safe to assume it was true.

    If it is true, would this not be protecting?


  • Options
    #7318
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Your not getting what I’m saying. I mean stitched up in the McCanns eyes.. I’m not saying the police are deliberately framing them. I’m saying if Kate is innocent of course she would be relieved if the dogs couldn’t be used AGAINST HER in court. You have to remember that these dogs were and are being used against the McCanns.

    The dogs were been used to assist with the case they were not brought in to stitch up anyone.

    Again. Not thinking about yourself as it's pretty much all they ever do is think of themselves.

    Would you not be more concerned about your daughter? and how the dogs could be used to help? rather than if they could be used to stich you up?


  • Options
    #7319
    callmehal
    Site Banned Posts: 461 ✭✭callmehal


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    flasher0030 wrote: »
    "It was so ordinary and comforting, a bit like going to see your grandad after a horrible day at school," McCann wrote.

    "He gave me one of his looks and a giant glass of brandy, and managed to get a smile out of me with his greeting: 'So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?'"

    And he raised their spirits by making fun of the sniffer dogs which had detected a suspicious scent in the family hire car, saying "So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?"

    "A couple of hours later, fortified by our brandies (it was my first-ever taste of the stuff), some useful snippets of advice and several amusing anecdotes, we left our friend feeling quite a bit better than we had when we'd arrived."

    These are your quotes. Where's the joking part by Gerry and Kate McCann.

    Bolded part shows where they were joking about it with the other peado.


  • Options
    #7320
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    callmehal wrote: »
    Bolded part shows where they were joking about it with the other peado.

    Maybe if you increase the font size.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7321
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    He was a fairly experienced guy IIRC.

    Someone of the street wouldn't have known this right and he trusted this person.

    Are we safe to assume he worked for them this "friend"?

    If that's the case and we're saying _this_ side are trustworthy I think it's safe to assume it was true.

    If it is true, would this not be protecting?

    I'm not disputing he was experienced. What I'm saying is there is no evidence, including from the mouth of this detective, that his bosses ordered him to investigate the case in any particular way. We can only go by his own statement that his 'friend' advised him how he felt the investigation would be handled. We cannot assume anything else.
    At the end of the day, he decided not to lead the investigation, perhaps based on this advice, however, there's no evidence that he was steered in any direction by the actual MET chiefs.


    In any case, he doesn't work for MI5, so it still doesn't negate the fact that there is no evidence that MI5 did any 'covering up'.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement