Hi Poco
I know what youre saying..we can only do the best with the information we,ve got and sleuth out what we can ,sometimes rumours hold an element of truth.....in the JBR forum rumours are still being discussed 10 years later.
Fencesitters & Not Guilty Post Here
- Thread starter KOOL LOOK
- Start date
- Status
I know what youre saying..we can only do the best with the information we,ve got and sleuth out what we can ,sometimes rumours hold an element of truth.....in the JBR forum rumours are still being discussed 10 years later.
Brefie
New Member
That's just it, Jeana. I don't know. I don't think ANYONE can say if that comment is shady or not. I don't even think that those unfortunate souls who have suffered a child abduction can say with any certainty. MILLIONS of things can contribute to something being the first thing a person says.
I have a terrible habit of thinking things in my head, blurting out a comment to my husband and expect him to understand what went on before I spoke. Lately he says to me, "Is that another conversation you started in your head without me?"
Point being that Kate makes her way back to the table (to alert everyone) and during that time God only knows what is going through her mind.
Well, actually, my original question was - who said that she said that?
Jdee
Sometimes I scream inside my head. I scream for th
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 12
I read it in the paper, but I also read in another paper another 'quote' she said when running back into the Tapa's Bar and it was not that. So I guess we pick and chose what we want to believe.
I would love to put that question to Kate and hear her answer of just exactly what did she say that night.
I would love to put that question to Kate and hear her answer of just exactly what did she say that night.
Brefie
New Member
If she can tell you with certainty, I might change my mind about her.
Jdee
Sometimes I scream inside my head. I scream for th
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 12
OK found the article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2414796.ece
and the quote,
"According to Kate, the bedroom window was open and the shutter up, yet they had been closed and down when Gerry checked at 9pm. Kate searched the apartment and the area immediately outside.
She ran down the hill and into the restaurant, where Gerry recalls her shouting or screaming either “Madeleine has gone. Somebody has taken her” or “Madeleine has gone. Someone has taken her”. Other reports suggest she shouted, “They've taken her.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2414796.ece
and the quote,
"According to Kate, the bedroom window was open and the shutter up, yet they had been closed and down when Gerry checked at 9pm. Kate searched the apartment and the area immediately outside.
She ran down the hill and into the restaurant, where Gerry recalls her shouting or screaming either “Madeleine has gone. Somebody has taken her” or “Madeleine has gone. Someone has taken her”. Other reports suggest she shouted, “They've taken her.”
Brefie
New Member
Thanks, Jdee....I appreciate that.
If Gerry's recollection is right then I cannot see why anyone would take her to task for that. Added to that the fact that it could have been one of 2 things, leads me to think he is being truthful since he cannot exactly remember because he was traumatized. AND if the report is true that Kate remembered the shutters were open when she had closed them only adds weight to the comment she made about someone taking her.
At this point it's down to the accuracy of the leaks and how you choose to interpret them.
If Gerry's recollection is right then I cannot see why anyone would take her to task for that. Added to that the fact that it could have been one of 2 things, leads me to think he is being truthful since he cannot exactly remember because he was traumatized. AND if the report is true that Kate remembered the shutters were open when she had closed them only adds weight to the comment she made about someone taking her.
At this point it's down to the accuracy of the leaks and how you choose to interpret them.
chicoliving
Former Member
delilah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 491
What a confusing and frustrating case this is.
Most of us question the decision to leave the kids alone, have concerns about what appears to be a very odd publicity campaign, believe the McCanns do not come across as particularly likeable individuals, and can't quite get our heads around their behaviour since 3 May. However, none of that necessarily means they are guilty! All of us must recall cases where a relative makes an impassioned appeal to find out what has happened to his (generally it's a he) girlfriend, wife, daughter, partner, etc, shedding tears, acting as one would 'expect' a grieving relative to behave, only for him later to be found to have been guilty of the victim's murder/manslaughter. So I wouldn't put much weight on body language or behaviour (although it is interesting to speculate). It ain't going to stand up in court, for sure. At least I'm not aware of anyone being convicted on the basis that they didn't seem to cry enough for the victim.
So that aside, the big problem for me is the timeline and how they could possibly have disposed of the body. The time leaves little room for planning, cover up, agreeing a story. The forensics, if indeed there is any truth in the 'DNA PROVES Madeleine's body was in the boot' makes no sense to me at all. Even if they had killed her, then concealed the body, the only way of getting such apparently convincing evidence in the car is
they had access to the car at the time (and I'm not clear who exactly had the hire car on 3 May etc) or they moved her body 25 days later, in an advanced state of decomposition, which just seems ridiculous to me, given the media furore surrounding the McCanns at the time. If the story about PJ playing down the significance of the DNA in the car is accurate, I'd expect the traces to have been through transference only.
I don't really want to criticise the PJ but it does strike me as odd that they are still REPORTEDLY talking about seizing the hire car, and seizing potential items of evidence such as CuddleCat, three months on. When all such items have been thoroughly contaminated. Very odd (and perhaps just media nonsense).
Sorry for ramble.
Most of us question the decision to leave the kids alone, have concerns about what appears to be a very odd publicity campaign, believe the McCanns do not come across as particularly likeable individuals, and can't quite get our heads around their behaviour since 3 May. However, none of that necessarily means they are guilty! All of us must recall cases where a relative makes an impassioned appeal to find out what has happened to his (generally it's a he) girlfriend, wife, daughter, partner, etc, shedding tears, acting as one would 'expect' a grieving relative to behave, only for him later to be found to have been guilty of the victim's murder/manslaughter. So I wouldn't put much weight on body language or behaviour (although it is interesting to speculate). It ain't going to stand up in court, for sure. At least I'm not aware of anyone being convicted on the basis that they didn't seem to cry enough for the victim.
So that aside, the big problem for me is the timeline and how they could possibly have disposed of the body. The time leaves little room for planning, cover up, agreeing a story. The forensics, if indeed there is any truth in the 'DNA PROVES Madeleine's body was in the boot' makes no sense to me at all. Even if they had killed her, then concealed the body, the only way of getting such apparently convincing evidence in the car is
they had access to the car at the time (and I'm not clear who exactly had the hire car on 3 May etc) or they moved her body 25 days later, in an advanced state of decomposition, which just seems ridiculous to me, given the media furore surrounding the McCanns at the time. If the story about PJ playing down the significance of the DNA in the car is accurate, I'd expect the traces to have been through transference only.
I don't really want to criticise the PJ but it does strike me as odd that they are still REPORTEDLY talking about seizing the hire car, and seizing potential items of evidence such as CuddleCat, three months on. When all such items have been thoroughly contaminated. Very odd (and perhaps just media nonsense).
Sorry for ramble.
Jdee
Sometimes I scream inside my head. I scream for th
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 12
Thanks Chico! In the British press the 'aunt' has stated repeatly that Gerry did not drug the kids.. So were back to which press you believe and which you don't. :waitasec:
What spoon?
And all the facts and evidence at this stage are leaks, we don't know how much truth is in these leaks.
BloodshotEye
Member
Agreed; Kate's statements immediately following her "discovery" is critical. And yet, different news sources appear to report something different. My feeling is that she cried out a few different things. And depending on where she was standing, different witnesses heard and reported this. Kate herself probably recalled saying some of these things.
"We've Let Her Down!"
I read that Kate also cried out, "We've let her down!"...Something like that. This was the statement that was reported fairly early on in the case. I thought it was kind of an odd thing to say. I tried to put myself in that state of mind, and say those words. What did they mean? Perhaps that Kate and her husband did not come home at the agreed time; and thus, disappointed Maddie (let her down). Perhaps it suggested that they "let her down", because Kate and her husband put themselves/their needs first that night, instead of their children. So much so, that they resorted to sedating them.
They did....they let her down. That was perhaps the most painfully honest thing I heard reported to have been said by Kate.
Brefie
New Member
Thank you Chicoliving
I am pretty sure they have had Justine McGuinness absolutely refute that they gave the children sedatives. I will look again....a quick search didn't turn anything up.
chicoliving
Former Member
Thank you Chicoliving
I am pretty sure they have had Justine McGuinness absolutely refute that they gave the children sedatives. I will look again....a quick search didn't turn anything up.
Oh, believe me, I'm not offering the link as the truth lol I think a lot gets lost in translation.
Brefie
New Member
Oh, I know!! Sorry if it seemed another way...I was just continuing my train of thought from a few posts up. Thanks again for finding that!
OKAY!
SO, for those who are saying Gerry admitted sedation (and there are at least a couple who have repeated this story as though they believe it, I just cannot remember who), check this out -
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1391412007
From the above link:
Thanks Brefie- I'd heard that Gerry admitted sedating the kids...someone told me he said it, then recanted.
Brefie
New Member
Hey Narla....well, for me, I find the idea that he 'recanted' pretty unbelievable.
That would basically require a 'quote' albeit leaked or unsubstantiated to the effect of "I know I said it, but I didn't mean it" or some such thing.
I am not saying there is no way he sedated them, but I do believe there is no way he said he sedated them.
What's your take on this case, Narla??
That would basically require a 'quote' albeit leaked or unsubstantiated to the effect of "I know I said it, but I didn't mean it" or some such thing.
I am not saying there is no way he sedated them, but I do believe there is no way he said he sedated them.
What's your take on this case, Narla??
Me too.
Right.
Good, now I know he didn't say he sedated them.
That is quite the rumour going around here
I am undecided as to whether or not the parents are guilty of killing their daughter.
At best, they are pretty crap parents to leave their kids alone like that- but understand the proximity to the Tapas bar- I really don't know at this stage.
- Status