Re: WHY ?

by ShuBob 10.07.14 14:18

ultimaThule wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:
< snip >

Without corroborating evidence it is impossible to say that Eddie and Keela were indicating to Madeleine in the apartment. It has been said that no-one else died in the apartment, that may well be so but we don't know where everything from the apartment came from ie new furniture or secondhand for example.

It is probable that the bedroom wardrobes were installed when the apartment was constructed and, as far as can be ascertained, no lumberjacks died when the trees were being felled and no carpenters expired while making the units.

I feel bad for finding your post funny uT big grin

by canada12 10.07.14 14:55

Daryl Dixon wrote:

Without corroborating evidence it is impossible to say that Eddie and Keela were indicating to Madeleine in the apartment. It has been said that no-one else died in the apartment, that may well be so but we don't know where everything from the apartment came from ie new furniture or secondhand for example.

Are you an expert in cadaver dogs?

by Guest 10.07.14 15:00

canada12 wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:

Without corroborating evidence it is impossible to say that Eddie and Keela were indicating to Madeleine in the apartment. It has been said that no-one else died in the apartment, that may well be so but we don't know where everything from the apartment came from ie new furniture or secondhand for example.

Are you an expert in cadaver dogs?

He/she wrote this too on July 2nd on another thread lol4

[quote]

It seems to me that Eddie and Keela's indications in 5A and on McCanns clothes have been in some way invalidated or discredited. I can see no other reason why the police would appear to openly ignore the dogs findings.

by canada12 10.07.14 15:03

candyfloss wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:

Without corroborating evidence it is impossible to say that Eddie and Keela were indicating to Madeleine in the apartment. It has been said that no-one else died in the apartment, that may well be so but we don't know where everything from the apartment came from ie new furniture or secondhand for example.

Are you an expert in cadaver dogs?

He/she wrote this too on July 2nd on another thread

It seems to me that Eddie and Keela's indications in 5A and on McCanns clothes have been in some way invalidated or discredited. I can see no other reason why the police would appear to openly ignore the dogs findings.

I was wondering if DD had been coaching Gerry for his court appearance. lol4

by Guest 10.07.14 15:07

canada12 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:

Without corroborating evidence it is impossible to say that Eddie and Keela were indicating to Madeleine in the apartment. It has been said that no-one else died in the apartment, that may well be so but we don't know where everything from the apartment came from ie new furniture or secondhand for example.

Are you an expert in cadaver dogs?

He/she wrote this too on July 2nd on another thread

It seems to me that Eddie and Keela's indications in 5A and on McCanns clothes have been in some way invalidated or discredited. I can see no other reason why the police would appear to openly ignore the dogs findings.

I was wondering if DD had been coaching Gerry for his court appearance.

He doesn't seem to like the doggies big grin

Still being used by police all the time, they seem to think they are brilliant at what they do, and they trust them. Mrs

by HelenMeg 10.07.14 15:08

Q Why did they alter the Last Photo ?
A Because they need to produce some concrete ‘evidence’ that Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd

An alternative explanation is that they needed to show that GM was at OC for the afternoon of the 3rd May.

by **PeterMac** 10.07.14 15:08

Q Why did Kate refuse to answer the 48 questions on the second day of her second interview - once she was made "arguida"
A Because, unlike the first occasion, Gerry was not with her, and she feared giving answers which contradicted his

Alternative answer
Preamble
In law a solicitor or barrister is not permitted to ask or to persuade or even strictly to permit a client to lie. If s/he becomes aware that this is happened s/he must withdraw from representing the client.
There is a fine line between what a lawyer knows knows, what s/he has managed to work out, and what s/he has been told.
IF Kate's lawyer had already been told the truth, he would have three Options

1 To withdraw and refuse to represent her any more
2 To urge Kate to tell the truth
Failing those
3 To advise his client to say "No Comment"

by HelenMeg 10.07.14 15:10

Q why did they wish to reveal that S had developed a liking for sea-bass?
A to give a plausible explanation of cadaver odour

Q Why did GM say he had his wallet stolen whilst in London
A

by Miraflores 10.07.14 15:13

HelenMeg wrote:
Q Why did GM say he had his wallet stolen whilst in London
A

To explain a lack of credit cards; detailed examination of spending on them may have been incriminatory.

by ShuBob 10.07.14 16:37

PeterMac wrote:Q Why did Kate refuse to answer the 48 questions on the second day of her second interview - once she was made "arguida"
A Because, unlike the first occasion, Gerry was not with her, and she feared giving answers which contradicted his

Alternative answer
Preamble
In law a solicitor or barrister is not permitted to ask or to persuade or even strictly to permit a client to lie. If s/he becomes aware that this is happened s/he must withdraw from representing the client.
There is a fine line between what a lawyer knows knows, what s/he has managed to work out, and what s/he has been told.
IF Kate's lawyer had already been told the truth, he would have three Options

1 To withdraw and refuse to represent her any more
2 To urge Kate to tell the truth
Failing those
3 To advise his client to say "No Comment"

With this, you start to understand why her lawyer Pinto de Abreu allegedly spoke to the couple about a plea bargain.

by **PeterMac** 10.07.14 17:23

HelenMeg wrote:Q Why did they alter the Last Photo ?
A Because they need to produce some concrete ‘evidence’ that Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd
An alternative explanation is that they needed to show that GM was at OC for the afternoon of the 3rd May.

Nice one ! That makes his personal "Window of Opportunity" MUCH larger.

I had budgeted on half to a quarter on an hour, but that stretches it to a very long time, even with his ruptured Achilles Tendon - which miraculously healed by 5pm

by **sharonl** 10.07.14 17:39

Petermac

Since we are asking the question "Why", maybe you could help me out with this one.

Gerry McCann has repeatedly stated, time after time, and again outside the courts this week that "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE IS DEAD"

If this is true, then why did Operation Grange go to the trouble and expense of digging up "Specific" parts of Praia da Luz in search of Madeleine's body? I would have thought that they would need at least some evidence that there was a body, and some evidence that the body may be in those locations.

Do police officers often dig up bits of land at random and just for the sake of it or is McCann totally oblivious to this?

by **PeterMac** 10.07.14 18:23

sharonl wrote:Petermac
Since we are asking the question "Why", maybe you could help me out with this one.
Gerry McCann has repeatedly stated, time after time, and again outside the courts this week that "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE IS DEAD"
If this is true, then why did Operation Grange go to the trouble and expense of digging up "Specific" parts of Praia da Luz in search of Madeleine's body? I would have thought that they would need at least some evidence that there was a body, and some evidence that the body may be in those locations.
Do police officers often dig up bits of land at random and just for the sake of it or is McCann totally oblivious to this?

Police officers don't DO anything unless there is a good reason.
What we therefore suspect - to the point of knowing - is that Gerry has not been given any of the evidence they have.
He is therefore in that sense "oblivious'

But he is also trapped.
If he reveals that Grange and the PJ have told him they are looking for a body, on good evidence,
sufficient to cause very Senior Officers to authorise the spending of many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Pounds / Euros
Then the Fund fails.
And from there is is only a short series of questions which push back the knowledge and belief ever further back in time

All they have to do is push back that time line beyond just the last ONE donation, and the offence might be complete

by Liz Eagles 10.07.14 18:24

Q. Why does GM have a problem with stating GA's book caused him persistent insomnia, depression and anxiety?

A. Because he wouldn't be able to function as a cardiologist as he would surely have to state his health issue to his employer and seek medical attention.

by Iamtheseeker 10.07.14 18:26

Why ? Because they are a pair of compulsive liars ? . The fact that their lies and greed cause honest decent people to suffer makes ones blood boil
shout

by worriedmum 10.07.14 18:50

WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

by Iamtheseeker 10.07.14 18:52

Could it be "eddie" and "keelas" brother or sister? big grin

by Snifferdog 10.07.14 19:05

aquila wrote:Q. Why does GM have a problem with stating GA's book caused him persistent insomnia, depression and anxiety?

A. Because he wouldn't be able to function as a cardiologist as he would surely have to state his health issue to his employer and seek medical attention.

Agreed Aquila.
They are really such obvious Liars. If they win this libel trial, we will know for sure that the presiding judge has been compromised by powerful people in Portugal, who are also protecting their own hides by helping the McCanns.

Q: What is the evidence that points to Madeleine being alive?

A: None. There really is no evidence that Madeleine is alive.

Q: What evidence points to Madeleine being deceased?

A: Blood and cadaver odour as indicated by the sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela, and the lies of the parents, friends and spokesman imo.

by Justformaddie 10.07.14 19:06

worriedmum wrote:WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

If it left a print it probably would've needed stitches or dumb bells IMO

by Guest 10.07.14 19:27

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-bloody-footprint-found-in-mccanns-apartment-6642364.html

worriedmum wrote:WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

A) If push comes to shove, this gives one explanation as to why blood was found in 5A. And if we're shoving really hard, why the same footprint allegedly found in the apartment that night in blood could also have been found some weeks later from the opposite shoe above the bumper of the hire car.

A theoretical answer only to your question, of course, worriedmum smilie

.

by **sharonl** 10.07.14 20:19

worriedmum wrote:WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

Was that before or after the purchase of the new pink trainers?

Why did she need new trainers?

by Brian Griffin 10.07.14 20:52

PeterMac wrote:
sharonl wrote:Petermac
Since we are asking the question "Why", maybe you could help me out with this one.
Gerry McCann has repeatedly stated, time after time, and again outside the courts this week that "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE IS DEAD"
If this is true, then why did Operation Grange go to the trouble and expense of digging up "Specific" parts of Praia da Luz in search of Madeleine's body? I would have thought that they would need at least some evidence that there was a body, and some evidence that the body may be in those locations.
Do police officers often dig up bits of land at random and just for the sake of it or is McCann totally oblivious to this?

Police officers don't DO anything unless there is a good reason.
What we therefore suspect - to the point of knowing - is that Gerry has not been given any of the evidence they have.
He is therefore in that sense "oblivious'

But he is also trapped.
If he reveals that Grange and the PJ have told him they are looking for a body, on good evidence,
sufficient to cause very Senior Officers to authorise the spending of many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Pounds / Euros
Then the Fund fails.
And from there is is only a short series of questions which push back the knowledge and belief ever further back in time

All they have to do is push back that time line beyond just the last ONE donation, and the offence might be complete

What about that fridge? Why didn't anyone try and find the fridge in the first instance?

by Brian Griffin 10.07.14 20:59

worriedmum wrote:WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

Really? Are they that obsessed with dogs that they have to create every opportunity to 'attack' them?

by Guest 10.07.14 20:59

sharonl wrote:
worriedmum wrote:WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

Was that before or after the purchase of the new pink trainers?

Why did she need new trainers?

She said she had bought the pink trainers just prior to the holiday.

They are Saucony Grid Trigon Ride 4. Fairly exclusive. Although I've looked for the Saucony brand in the usual sports shops chains, I haven't found any (yes, I know that makes me sound an incredibly sad type of person) so I imagine she would have had to buy them either online or from an exclusive store. I would have thought it incredibly difficult to find these trainers at short notice stuck out in Portugal, so I'm inclined to believe that she did take them with her on the holiday.

As to whether or not they are a clue she wants to provide an alibi for with the dog bite story or they're a decoy for a completely different pair of trainers, I'm not sure.

Being the sad sort I am, I did a bit of delving into the pink trainers and waffled on about it here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5492p20-bloody-footprint-found-in-mccanns-holiday-apartment

by missbeetle 10.07.14 22:03

worriedmum wrote:WHY did Kate feel the need to tell us that she was 'attacked' by dogs on one of her runs, and that it drew blood?

As we ran along the promenade, a small dog jumped out from under a bench and attacked my right calf. It was pretty sore and I was a bit shaken, but I carried on as coolly as I could manage.
McCann, Kate (2011-05-12). Madeleine: Our daughter's disappearance and the continuing search for her (Kindle Locations 893-894). Transworld. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps Kate was attacked by a dog in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance.

Maybe not in the manner she describes...

If she were to say right calf, I would look at left wrist.

Perhaps the location at which a possible dog attack could occur has been changed.

It could be that the dog concerned was not even a small one.

I wonder if it was even Kate herself who was nipped at.

Possibly the owner of said dog is known to her or to O'Brien...?