Patrick Jane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2019
- Messages
- 465
- Reaction score
- 5,441
SBMWhat I find interesting is that the husband dismissed the therapist's statements as not having anything to do with the investigation. I don't think he liked the idea that their marriage was in any way relevant to the case, whereas the actions by LE tell me they do think it's relevant. The "therapist" put their relationship in the spotlight and he pointed in another direction.
If that's the case, then how do you explain this?
Δικηγόρος ψυχολόγου Καρολάιν: Ο 32χρονος συναίνεσε να μιλήσει στα ΜΜΕ
Therapist - I've got written consent of B
Μιλώντας στον ΣΚΑΪ, δήλωσε ότι «ο πιλότος είχε δώσει έγγραφη προέγκριση προκειμένου η εντολέας μου να δώσει διευκρινίσεις στους δημοσιογράφους για τη σχέση τους. Η κ. Μυλωνοπούλου δεν θα έδινε διευκρινίσεις αν δεν είχε την έγκριση του συζύγου».
Speaking to Skai (TV news), (the lawyer for EM the hypnotherapist) stated that "The pilot had given written pre-approval in order for my client to give clarifications to the journalists about their (B&C's) relationship. EM wouldn't have given (these) clarifications if she hadn't received approval from the husband (to do so)."
(my translation) /end of translation
I think we need to make a distinction between someone's actions and someone's statements. As the saying goes, "actions speak louder than words." JMO
Last edited: