The IDing business is very odd and haphazard. But the strangest thing for me is why, if Jane's sighting of Madeleine being carried off is on the "timetable", there's no record of several of them instantly rushing off in that direction calling Madeleine's name and asking everyone they could find if they'd seen a dark-haired man in light trousers carrying a little girl? Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing to do?
Yes, indeed.
But how many times in this case has the "obvious" thing been done?
I hadn't thought of that possibility bollywood ... but yes, I suppose there is a chance that the McCanns came back from the Tapas bar on one of those evenings ( possibly the evening when Mrs Fenn heard prolonged crying ) to find that Madeleine had been injured whilst stumbling around the apartment. It is conceivable that Gerry McCann would not want to mention any such injury because it would, as you put it, make them seem chronically malfunctioning as parents.
I wonder though, if that were the case, would it be more likely that he would just choose to keep the information to himself, and simply answer the question dishonestly, by saying ... "No, Madeleine never suffered any injury in the apartment" ... I mean, who would know the difference ?
If she happened to have 'bled' as a consequence of that injury, then that could have been explained away by pin-pointing the area in which an 'innocent nose-bleed' had occured.
No, I just don't see that a previous inconsequential and non-serious injury would have lead to the McCann's clear determination to repeatedly avoid answering the question ... "Was Madeleine ever injured in the apartment?"
Been away so I could not respond to your post. Tbh, I don't understand a no comment answer. In my experience, saying not that I recall, or not that I am aware, covers a situation in which a person fears he or she may be hit with some discovery. Likely an attorney tells the client not to volunteer additional information that can be used against the person, don't you think?
On another note, if he were aware or suspected that the child was harmed in the apartment, and if he revealed this to his attorney, I am then somewhat confounded as to why an attorney would so vigorously pursue her still being alive. It seems to me they would pursue abduction and having come to harm by the abductor.
Among possible scenarios, I had assumed that the parents suspected someone. That is the scenario that gives them the most benefit of the doubt.
But how many times in this case has the "obvious" thing been done?
I suppose it depends on which priorities of the protagonists you take as your starting point.
When I take the "distraught parents who don't know where their child is and just want her back" viewpoint, I find many things don't add up.
I missed that yesterday but I bypass Cath01's posts anyway because imo once you start tagging many of your posts with personal digs about the officials who were investigating the case, then you have basically lost your argument.
The problem with that approach is that the lurkers in the thread might accept Cath's misrepresentations as fact if they are not challenged.
But how many times in this case has the "obvious" thing been done?
Absolutely. You could probably summarise it by saying that the actions of several people are not at all consistent with what you'd expect from people who genuinely believe that 'the child' had been abducted.
Don't worry Donald. I am still open minded and happy to be proved wrong. I only fell off my fence because of the tendency of some people to be intractable.
See, this is how I view things. If you are a reasonable person you will make judgements, come to your own conclusions, and you don't need anyone else to tell you how to do it.
When you then enter a debate, you put forward these conclusions and judgments, then you listen to others, and from listening to others, you may either change your judgment or have it reinforced.
However, if you have the odd person or two, who cannot accept ANYTHING that may even possibly prove them wrong, who resort to baiting and belittling people, who refuse point blank to even admit that a single little thing is "suspicious" , it may, just may mind you, push you in the exact opposite direction to which they would like you to go.
Especially when you have a thread thats tootling along nicely, everyone having good discussions, looking at all sides of an arguement (if you read all my posts you will find a lot of that, the for and against type stuff) and then someone/anyone else arrives and turns the tone of the discussion "confrontational" rather than "reasonable", the likelihood is, even if some of the points made are valid, you dismiss them as invalid because of how they are put across.
Do you see what I mean?
I understand completely what you are saying Lizzie. You're to'ing and fro'ing make your posts extremely interesting and provokes thought. I just don't agree that somone's opinion should force you to take the 'opposite' view. Their opinion should either be acccepted or dismissed. They are not providing you with any evidence to confirm the opposite view. If that happens, then you are allowing their ascribed motive to cloud your judgement, and that is never a good basis to form your own opinion.
Perhaps those people firmly believe what they are saying because they have formed their opinion over a long period of time. It is unlikely anyone will change their view. Or, if you seriously feel that some kind of tactics are being used, then ignoring is the way forward. That way you know your opinion is genuinely your own.
It everyone thought the same, this discussion would descend into the type found on the extreme sites of whichever persusaion, and would no doubt be locked.
Don't worry Donald. I am still open minded and happy to be proved wrong. I only fell off my fence because of the tendency of some people to be intractable.
See, this is how I view things. If you are a reasonable person you will make judgements, come to your own conclusions, and you don't need anyone else to tell you how to do it.
When you then enter a debate, you put forward these conclusions and judgments, then you listen to others, and from listening to others, you may either change your judgment or have it reinforced.
However, if you have the odd person or two, who cannot accept ANYTHING that may even possibly prove them wrong, who resort to baiting and belittling people, who refuse point blank to even admit that a single little thing is "suspicious" , it may, just may mind you, push you in the exact opposite direction to which they would like you to go.
Especially when you have a thread thats tootling along nicely, everyone having good discussions, looking at all sides of an arguement (if you read all my posts you will find a lot of that, the for and against type stuff) and then someone/anyone else arrives and turns the tone of the discussion "confrontational" rather than "reasonable", the likelihood is, even if some of the points made are valid, you dismiss them as invalid because of how they are put across.
Do you see what I mean?
Also I would like to add - I would be ecstatic, over the moon and really happy in general to be proved wrong in any and all suspicion surrounding The Mccann's if it meant Madeleine came home safely.
I would shout from the rooftops and rejoice in how wrong I was, if it meant that little girl was safe.
I would apologise with all my heart for doubting their motives, even if I still felt that bad judgements were made.
Any one of us who discuss possible suspicions of the Mccanns would far rather be wrong than right, I believe.
If Madeleine would come home safe.
I so agree with what you have said Lizzy.
I did because of reasoned argument at one point change my mind completely about the involvement of the Tapas 7.
What posters were saying made sense.
So I reviewed what was said , and thought my judgement might be blurred.
Now however, I have gone back to my original position, not because of any pressure, but because of the discrepancies once again in the interviews that I have just been reading as posted by *Purdy*
So it shows that views can swing if given sensible reasons.
I am not intrenched in my personal opinion about this case.
But I do like most, wish that some quarter can be given ,by some posters , who when faced with a high probability that something is more likely to have happened than not ,would give a little credence to that evidence.
I do not want to be almost bludgeoned by repetitive comments, on the premise , that if it is said long enough and often enough , it must be right.
That is not a discussion , that is a mission.
Do you want this thread locked Donald? I seem to remember it was you who was mentioning that mostly on the last thread as well. That then got locked (well, deleted actually)
Been away so I could not respond to your post. Tbh, I don't understand a no comment answer. In my experience, saying not that I recall, or not that I am aware, covers a situation in which a person fears he or she may be hit with some discovery. Likely an attorney tells the client not to volunteer additional information that can be used against the person, don't you think?
On another note, if he were aware or suspected that the child was harmed in the apartment, and if he revealed this to his attorney, I am then somewhat confounded as to why an attorney would so vigorously pursue her still being alive. It seems to me they would pursue abduction and having come to harm by the abductor.
Among possible scenarios, I had assumed that the parents suspected someone. That is the scenario that gives them the most benefit of the doubt.
This point has been answered before - it seems to be POLICE procedure when a child is missing to say "we have no reason to believe the child has come to harm" or "we have reason to believe the child is still alive" or words to that effect.
I have noticed this in previous missing child cases where the police would make a statement or hold a press conference and assure everyone that they "had reason to believe the child is still alive and well" when it later turned out that the child was already dead when the police made that statement.
I think the police must feel that the public will not report any suspicious activity if they believe the missing child is dead, that they will just give up on the case.
Gerry is probably repeating what his advisers have told him to say.
A lot of people listening to him will know that this is what the police say in cases like this and they will know that the police or an adviser has told Gerry to say this.
Edited to add: Obviously saying that is a load of ******** because if a child goes missing nobody knows if they are dead or alive until they are found.
I suppose it depends on which priorities of the protagonists you take as your starting point.
When I take the "distraught parents who don't know where their child is and just want her back" viewpoint, I find many things don't add up.
Well yes, exactly. See, I have tried to put myself in their position (incredibly hard as that might be, in fact probably impossible) and see what I think I might do.
Now of course, I can only make best guesses on my own knowledge of myself, and what my husband and friends have said when I have asked them "Do you think I would do this?"
I can't imagine refusing to answer any questions just because it may put me in danger. I would be more concerned with my child's danger than my own. Yes, ok, maybe they would end up suspecting you more and therefore stop looking in other places, but really. If you are completely innocent the likelihood of this is small. Risk v Benefit, every time I would take the risk.
I would not have "marketed" my daughters eye defect against the express wishes of the police. Again, Risk v Benefit - the risk to my child would be too great. Especially if the experts were telling me this.
I would not have started a fund. If people wanted to donate to help search for my daughter, I would obviously be very grateful, but would ask a professional to set up and deal with any money that came in. I certainly would not ask people for money, at least not at that stage, and maybe not ever.
I would not have left Portugal whether I was "arguido" or not. Imagine if my child was found and I was not there waiting for her. At that stage at least, I would still have a lot of hope for a happy outcome.
I certainly would not be off to meet the Pope or any high profile person whilst the search for my child was continuing.
If a senior policeman had written a book inferring that I was guilty, I would deny it and move on.
I doubt very much I would even be on the internet, so any internet doubt towards me would go straight over my head.
I would not have hired a PR firm. The police are perfectly cabable of releasing information in a timely and reasonable manner, in a way that will aid the investigation. What do I need a PR firm for?
I may well hire a private investigative firm at a later date - or have someone do so - however I would ensure that the proper research was done and that they were specialists in locating missing persons. If any of my PI's behaved the way these ones have, I would drop them without further ado and move on.
My husband works in media/internet web design etc, he would probably set up a website - it would be in his very nature to do so. There would not, however, be a Paypal sign anywhere on it. (If anyone is interested in my hubby's media company, which he is a director and part owner of, I will happily provide a link!)
I can probably think of more. And as I said, Best guess only.
1)The problem with that approach is that the lurkers in the thread might accept Cath's misrepresentations as fact if they are not challenged.
2) Absolutely. You could probably summarise it by saying that the actions of several people are not at all consistent with what you'd expect from people who genuinely believe that 'the child' had been abducted.
1) I do see what you are saying, and I try to see it from different sides, but frankly yesterday I gave up. I would rather, frankly, discuss the other side with Shorty and Donald who are willing to both be heard and to hear.
2) I would agree with this as posited above. However, of course, we cannot speak for them as only they know what their own feelings and motivations are.
The IDing business is very odd and haphazard. But the strangest thing for me is why, if Jane's sighting of Madeleine being carried off is on the "timetable", there's no record of several of them instantly rushing off in that direction calling Madeleine's name and asking everyone they could find if they'd seen a dark-haired man in light trousers carrying a little girl? Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing to do?
The scribbled timetables were written in the presence of Gerry who was sitting at the table at the time. They state that at 9.20 JT saw a man carrying a child.
According to JT she told Gerry about her sighting at 3am (five hours later) and she described his reaction as "horrified".
JT claimed she hadn't told him earlier because the information might have frightened him. :eek:
I understand completely what you are saying Lizzie. You're to'ing and fro'ing make your posts extremely interesting and provokes thought. I just don't agree that somone's opinion should force you to take the 'opposite' view. Their opinion should either be acccepted or dismissed. They are not providing you with any evidence to confirm the opposite view. If that happens, then you are allowing their ascribed motive to cloud your judgement, and that is never a good basis to form your own opinion.
Perhaps those people firmly believe what they are saying because they have formed their opinion over a long period of time. It is unlikely anyone will change their view. Or, if you seriously feel that some kind of tactics are being used, then ignoring is the way forward. That way you know your opinion is genuinely your own.
It everyone thought the same, this discussion would descend into the type found on the extreme sites of whichever persusaion, and would no doubt be locked.
In my opinion of course.:)
I'm sure they do believe everything they are saying, and its only when I get "baited" that I tend to get, you know, a wee bit annoyed.
As for ignoring, I think you will find that I have been
As for what I put in bold, surely it is perfectly natural to believe that a person who is unwilling to admit even a tiny bit that what the other person says has merit, has no merit themselves?
If the good posts and valid opinions get lost amongst the intractability and 100% bias of the person putting them forward, frankly they only have themselves to blame.
Frequently questions are asked, and answers not given.
If someone says to me "Why do you believe this" I will answer "because......etc etc" If they have given me a reason why they find issue with my opinion, I will either agree that I have not thought it through, or will present a counter arguement.
If someone said to you over and over and over again "the sky is blue, its never grey" and no matter what counter position you put to them they say "nope, its blue. Its never grey" eventually you just have to give up.
I so agree with what you have said Lizzy.
I did because of reasoned argument at one point change my mind completely about the involvement of the Tapas 7.
What posters were saying made sense.
So I reviewed what was said , and thought my judgement might be blurred.
Now however, I have gone back to my original position, not because of any pressure, but because of the discrepancies once again in the interviews that I have just been reading as posted by *Purdy*
So it shows that views can swing if given sensible reasons.
I am not intrenched in my personal opinion about this case.
But I do like most, wish that some quarter can be given ,by some posters , who when faced with a high probability that something is more likely to have happened than not ,would give a little credence to that evidence.
I do not want to be almost bludgeoned by repetitive comments, on the premise , that if it is said long enough and often enough , it must be right.
That is not a discussion , that is a mission.
Do you want this thread locked Donald? I seem to remember it was you who was mentioning that mostly on the last thread as well. That then got locked (well, deleted actually)
I don't think Donald wants it locked. I enjoy discussing things with Mr D.
And anyhow, I have been reassured that attempts to get this thread locked are being monitored closely.
If a senior policeman had written a book inferring that I was guilty, I would deny it and move on.
As always a very good post Lizzy, and I apologise for snipping it down but, y'know, space and that.
I'm just highlighting this because I disagree with it very strongly. If I was innocent and such a book was written about me, I would probably sue.
*HOWEVER* it is important to state that we're not comparing like-for-like here. We can't possibly be in this position if we hadn't done all the things the McCanns did that we already established we would never do. The senior policeman in question wouldn't write the book suggesting our guilt without all the damning evidence pointing to our guilt. And it wouldn't be there in our case, because...well, y'know...
So it's not even worth commenting on really. I can understand that you'd challenge such a book. But, such a book wouldn't have been written because (aside from the obvious) of the rest of the points in your post.
As always a very good post Lizzy, and I apologise for snipping it down but, y'know, space and that.
I'm just highlighting this because I disagree with it very strongly. If I was innocent and such a book was written about me, I would probably sue.
*HOWEVER* it is important to state that we're not comparing like-for-like here. We can't possibly be in this position if we hadn't done all the things the McCanns did that we already established we would never do. The senior policeman in question wouldn't write the book suggesting our guilt without all the damning evidence pointing to our guilt. And it wouldn't be there in our case, because...well, y'know...
So it's not even worth commenting on really. I can understand that you'd challenge such a book. But, such a book wouldn't have been written because (aside from the obvious) of the rest of the points in your post.
Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe I would sue. But not for money.
And as you say, it would be a completely different scenario anyway.
This point has been answered before - it seems to be POLICE procedure when a child is missing to say "we have no reason to believe the child has come to harm" or "we have reason to believe the child is still alive" or words to that effect.
I have noticed this in previous missing child cases where the police would make a statement or hold a press conference and assure everyone that they "had reason to believe the child is still alive and well" when it later turned out that the child was already dead when the police made that statement.
I think the police must feel that the public will not report any suspicious activity if they believe the missing child is dead, that they will just give up on the case.
Gerry is probably repeating what his advisers have told him to say.
A lot of people listening to him will know that this is what the police say in cases like this and they will know that the police or an adviser has told Gerry to say this.
Edited to add: Obviously saying that is a load of ******** because if a child goes missing nobody knows if they are dead or alive until they are found.
My honest thoughts regarding Maddie, is that sadly she is dead.
How, where, when and by who's hands I haven't the foggiest.
BUT, if I was somewhere and saw something that looked suspicious, even could be Maddie, despite what I personally think, I would alert the police and make my feelings about what I had seen known.
So in my view, my thinking that she has sadly died, is not going to prevent me from taking action if I saw something that I thought may be with reporting.
If it was me and a book was written I would only sue if I could prove it was lies - because if I sued I would be asked to prove that the book contained falsehoods in a court setting. If I wasn't confident I could do that, I would still be very vocal in my opposition to such a book. In fact, I'd probably write my own (or have someone else write it), clearly detailing my side of the story. Then people could make up their own minds.
But I would always keep in mind that lawyers would want actual proof and readers of my book would expect actual proof. Not personal attacks. Not made up evidence. Not vague statements. Facts.
I'd also have to be prepared for people to question my version of events or make alternative interpretations. I would have to accept that until there is a resolution, there are possibilities.
If it was me and a book was written I would only sue if I could prove it was lies - because if I sued I would be asked to prove that the book contained falsehoods in a court setting. If I wasn't confident I could do that, I would still be very vocal in my opposition to such a book. In fact, I'd probably write my own (or have someone else write it), clearly detailing my side of the story. Then people could make up their own minds.
But I would always keep in mind that lawyers would want actual proof and readers of my book would expect actual proof. Not personal attacks. Not made up evidence. Not vague statements. Facts.
I'd also have to be prepared for people to question my version of events or make alternative interpretations. I would have to accept that until there is a resolution, there are possibilities.
That's kinda what I was trying to say but I think you said it better. Cheers!
I know this is an odd thing to ask , but why have I somehow got the impression , that Murat , when he lived in England was domicile not far from where the Mccanns live.
Or have I lost the plot completely.
I am sure I read it somewhere.
I know this is an odd thing to ask , but why have I somehow got the impression , that Murat , when he lived in England was domicile not far from where the Mccanns live.
Or have I lost the plot completely.
I am sure I read it somewhere.
Dunno about that chebby but I found this:
There is further press speculation about the 'Exeter connection', based around the fact that, just prior to May 3rd, Robert Murat spent 10 days at his sister's home in Exeter. Her house is less than a mile from the house where Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien live. Tanner and O'Brien are neighbours of James and Charlotte Gorrod, who were also in Praia da Luz, at the same time as the Tapas Nine.
There is further press speculation about the 'Exeter connection', based around the fact that, just prior to May 3rd, Robert Murat spent 10 days at his sister's home in Exeter. Her house is less than a mile from the house where Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien live. Tanner and O'Brien are neighbours of James and Charlotte Gorrod, who were also in Praia da Luz, at the same time as the Tapas Nine.
That was it .. Thank you..
I knew he was near or close to someone .
And Jane Tanner of all people.
ETA
Perhaps thats where JT saw him , and then to see him again in PLD, must have been odd.
BUT, if I was somewhere and saw something that looked suspicious, even could be Maddie, despite what I personally think, I would alert the police and make my feelings about what I had seen known.
Maddie's eye defect is known about all over the world,so I am sure if a child of about the right age was spotted, it would be reported whether that person believed her to be alive or not. For one thing the reward has still to be claimed.
I think there would have been ways to denounce the book without taking legal action.
I think probably because as we saw in Lisbon last week their argument boils down to "because we say so" it must have been easier to find fault with the book and sue. However it was a risky game, certain facts are now in the public domain..
I think there would have been ways to denounce the book without taking legal action.
I think probably because as we saw in Lisbon last week their argument boils down to "because we say so" it must have been easier to find fault with the book and sue. However it was a risky game, certain facts are now in the public domain..[/quote]
If one has nothing to hide it should not matter what facts are in the public domain!
That was it .. Thank you..
I knew he was near or close to someone .
And Jane Tanner of all people.
ETA
Perhaps thats where JT saw him , and then to see him again in PLD, must have been odd.
I also found this:
James Gorrod, 34, a solicitor from Exeter, said that detectives had cleared him and his wife of any link to her disappearance. They had raised suspicion because they were a couple who were on holiday with the McCanns and had hired a car with a child seat. However, it transpired that they were travelling with their two-year-old son.
I assume that means 'on holiday at the same time' rather than 'in the same group'.
So JT and ROB's neighbour was also in PdL that week. One of many strange coincidences.
Comments
Yes, indeed.
But how many times in this case has the "obvious" thing been done?
Been away so I could not respond to your post. Tbh, I don't understand a no comment answer. In my experience, saying not that I recall, or not that I am aware, covers a situation in which a person fears he or she may be hit with some discovery. Likely an attorney tells the client not to volunteer additional information that can be used against the person, don't you think?
On another note, if he were aware or suspected that the child was harmed in the apartment, and if he revealed this to his attorney, I am then somewhat confounded as to why an attorney would so vigorously pursue her still being alive. It seems to me they would pursue abduction and having come to harm by the abductor.
Among possible scenarios, I had assumed that the parents suspected someone. That is the scenario that gives them the most benefit of the doubt.
I suppose it depends on which priorities of the protagonists you take as your starting point.
When I take the "distraught parents who don't know where their child is and just want her back" viewpoint, I find many things don't add up.
The problem with that approach is that the lurkers in the thread might accept Cath's misrepresentations as fact if they are not challenged.
Absolutely. You could probably summarise it by saying that the actions of several people are not at all consistent with what you'd expect from people who genuinely believe that 'the child' had been abducted.
I so agree with what you have said Lizzy.
I did because of reasoned argument at one point change my mind completely about the involvement of the Tapas 7.
What posters were saying made sense.
So I reviewed what was said , and thought my judgement might be blurred.
Now however, I have gone back to my original position, not because of any pressure, but because of the discrepancies once again in the interviews that I have just been reading as posted by *Purdy*
So it shows that views can swing if given sensible reasons.
I am not intrenched in my personal opinion about this case.
But I do like most, wish that some quarter can be given ,by some posters , who when faced with a high probability that something is more likely to have happened than not ,would give a little credence to that evidence.
I do not want to be almost bludgeoned by repetitive comments, on the premise , that if it is said long enough and often enough , it must be right.
That is not a discussion , that is a mission.
This point has been answered before - it seems to be POLICE procedure when a child is missing to say "we have no reason to believe the child has come to harm" or "we have reason to believe the child is still alive" or words to that effect.
I have noticed this in previous missing child cases where the police would make a statement or hold a press conference and assure everyone that they "had reason to believe the child is still alive and well" when it later turned out that the child was already dead when the police made that statement.
I think the police must feel that the public will not report any suspicious activity if they believe the missing child is dead, that they will just give up on the case.
Gerry is probably repeating what his advisers have told him to say.
A lot of people listening to him will know that this is what the police say in cases like this and they will know that the police or an adviser has told Gerry to say this.
Edited to add: Obviously saying that is a load of ******** because if a child goes missing nobody knows if they are dead or alive until they are found.
Well yes, exactly. See, I have tried to put myself in their position (incredibly hard as that might be, in fact probably impossible) and see what I think I might do.
Now of course, I can only make best guesses on my own knowledge of myself, and what my husband and friends have said when I have asked them "Do you think I would do this?"
I can't imagine refusing to answer any questions just because it may put me in danger. I would be more concerned with my child's danger than my own. Yes, ok, maybe they would end up suspecting you more and therefore stop looking in other places, but really. If you are completely innocent the likelihood of this is small. Risk v Benefit, every time I would take the risk.
I would not have "marketed" my daughters eye defect against the express wishes of the police. Again, Risk v Benefit - the risk to my child would be too great. Especially if the experts were telling me this.
I would not have started a fund. If people wanted to donate to help search for my daughter, I would obviously be very grateful, but would ask a professional to set up and deal with any money that came in. I certainly would not ask people for money, at least not at that stage, and maybe not ever.
I would not have left Portugal whether I was "arguido" or not. Imagine if my child was found and I was not there waiting for her. At that stage at least, I would still have a lot of hope for a happy outcome.
I certainly would not be off to meet the Pope or any high profile person whilst the search for my child was continuing.
If a senior policeman had written a book inferring that I was guilty, I would deny it and move on.
I doubt very much I would even be on the internet, so any internet doubt towards me would go straight over my head.
I would not have hired a PR firm. The police are perfectly cabable of releasing information in a timely and reasonable manner, in a way that will aid the investigation. What do I need a PR firm for?
I may well hire a private investigative firm at a later date - or have someone do so - however I would ensure that the proper research was done and that they were specialists in locating missing persons. If any of my PI's behaved the way these ones have, I would drop them without further ado and move on.
My husband works in media/internet web design etc, he would probably set up a website - it would be in his very nature to do so. There would not, however, be a Paypal sign anywhere on it. (If anyone is interested in my hubby's media company, which he is a director and part owner of, I will happily provide a link!)
I can probably think of more. And as I said, Best guess only.
1) I do see what you are saying, and I try to see it from different sides, but frankly yesterday I gave up. I would rather, frankly, discuss the other side with Shorty and Donald who are willing to both be heard and to hear.
2) I would agree with this as posited above. However, of course, we cannot speak for them as only they know what their own feelings and motivations are.
The scribbled timetables were written in the presence of Gerry who was sitting at the table at the time. They state that at 9.20 JT saw a man carrying a child.
According to JT she told Gerry about her sighting at 3am (five hours later) and she described his reaction as "horrified".
JT claimed she hadn't told him earlier because the information might have frightened him. :eek:
Ye Gods and little fishes.
I'm sure they do believe everything they are saying, and its only when I get "baited" that I tend to get, you know, a wee bit annoyed.
As for ignoring, I think you will find that I have been
As for what I put in bold, surely it is perfectly natural to believe that a person who is unwilling to admit even a tiny bit that what the other person says has merit, has no merit themselves?
If the good posts and valid opinions get lost amongst the intractability and 100% bias of the person putting them forward, frankly they only have themselves to blame.
Frequently questions are asked, and answers not given.
If someone says to me "Why do you believe this" I will answer "because......etc etc" If they have given me a reason why they find issue with my opinion, I will either agree that I have not thought it through, or will present a counter arguement.
If someone said to you over and over and over again "the sky is blue, its never grey" and no matter what counter position you put to them they say "nope, its blue. Its never grey" eventually you just have to give up.
I know what you mean.....honey.
I don't think Donald wants it locked. I enjoy discussing things with Mr D.
And anyhow, I have been reassured that attempts to get this thread locked are being monitored closely.
As always a very good post Lizzy, and I apologise for snipping it down but, y'know, space and that.
I'm just highlighting this because I disagree with it very strongly. If I was innocent and such a book was written about me, I would probably sue.
*HOWEVER* it is important to state that we're not comparing like-for-like here. We can't possibly be in this position if we hadn't done all the things the McCanns did that we already established we would never do. The senior policeman in question wouldn't write the book suggesting our guilt without all the damning evidence pointing to our guilt. And it wouldn't be there in our case, because...well, y'know...
So it's not even worth commenting on really. I can understand that you'd challenge such a book. But, such a book wouldn't have been written because (aside from the obvious) of the rest of the points in your post.
Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe I would sue. But not for money.
And as you say, it would be a completely different scenario anyway.
My honest thoughts regarding Maddie, is that sadly she is dead.
How, where, when and by who's hands I haven't the foggiest.
BUT, if I was somewhere and saw something that looked suspicious, even could be Maddie, despite what I personally think, I would alert the police and make my feelings about what I had seen known.
So in my view, my thinking that she has sadly died, is not going to prevent me from taking action if I saw something that I thought may be with reporting.
But I would always keep in mind that lawyers would want actual proof and readers of my book would expect actual proof. Not personal attacks. Not made up evidence. Not vague statements. Facts.
I'd also have to be prepared for people to question my version of events or make alternative interpretations. I would have to accept that until there is a resolution, there are possibilities.
That's kinda what I was trying to say but I think you said it better. Cheers!
Or have I lost the plot completely.
I am sure I read it somewhere.
Dunno about that chebby but I found this:
There is further press speculation about the 'Exeter connection', based around the fact that, just prior to May 3rd, Robert Murat spent 10 days at his sister's home in Exeter. Her house is less than a mile from the house where Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien live. Tanner and O'Brien are neighbours of James and Charlotte Gorrod, who were also in Praia da Luz, at the same time as the Tapas Nine.
That was it .. Thank you..
I knew he was near or close to someone .
And Jane Tanner of all people.
ETA
Perhaps thats where JT saw him , and then to see him again in PLD, must have been odd.
Maddie's eye defect is known about all over the world,so I am sure if a child of about the right age was spotted, it would be reported whether that person believed her to be alive or not. For one thing the reward has still to be claimed.
I think probably because as we saw in Lisbon last week their argument boils down to "because we say so" it must have been easier to find fault with the book and sue. However it was a risky game, certain facts are now in the public domain..
I also found this:
James Gorrod, 34, a solicitor from Exeter, said that detectives had cleared him and his wife of any link to her disappearance. They had raised suspicion because they were a couple who were on holiday with the McCanns and had hired a car with a child seat. However, it transpired that they were travelling with their two-year-old son.
I assume that means 'on holiday at the same time' rather than 'in the same group'.
So JT and ROB's neighbour was also in PdL that week. One of many strange coincidences.