|
By:
this is part of Gerry's theory that the abductor was hiding in the apartment while he was checking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483026/Madeleines-fathers-chilling-belief-Kidnapper-hiding-flat-I-checked-her.html |
|
By:
That makes sense that that us what happened,
If the McCanns had been guilty and wanted to cover up they would have said that when they checked the child was gone and the door moved or one of their friends would have found the child missing. with unlocked patio doors But to stage an abduction by saying to the police that the abducter was hiding in the apt at the time McCann checked is senseless That is not how anyone would stage an abduction Now McCann told police what he saw, and what he told the police he wouldn't have told them if they had staged an abduction What he told them only makes sense if they are innocent |
|
By:
If they had staged an abduction McCann would never have told the police that the children were ok when he checked, and the patio doors moved
He would not have said that if he was guilty, it would not under any circumstances make sense to say it |
|
By:
Does that make sense, I am thinking as I type about this scenario so it's badly worded
|
|
By:
I believe now , thinking about how McCann described to the police what he saw is only possible if he is innocent
It is a very subtle but powerful thing , it imo could not have been said by anybody but an innocent person describing what happened |
|
By:
Tanner's testimony changed from one interview to the next, supplying different details at different times. And it didn't line up with the mccann's statements either (stranger witnessed on completely opposite sides of the road, 5 m away or 50m away, which is it? massive difference there). Has Tanner or any of the tapas gang done a lie detector test ?
|
|
By:
I am certain of one thing , someone guilty could not and would not have given the description McCann gave to the police.
|
|
By:
Only an innocent person would have. or could have given that description,
It is subtle and logical, you need logic to understand it |
|
By:
what description was that ? do you have a quote?
|
|
By:
Playing if you don't have the ability to follow my line of reasoning I will
try and make it simple for you The description that Gerry gave to the police could not, and would not have been given by someone guilty, I have said in detail why if you take the time to try and understand |
|
By:
* platini
|
|
By:
The description he gave to the police of what he saw at the apt , the fact that he said the children were ok but the door was moved
This is crucial. and can not be a pre arranged saying if he was guilty. It must be spontaneous and true, because someone guilty would never have said that |
|
By:
It is vital that Gerry described it this way, because without knowing it points conclusively to his innocence that he describes it this way
|
|
By:
Under what scenario would someone guilty have told the police that when they checked the children were ok
and the door was moved. Why would someone guilty say that ? It doesn't make sense FFS lfc....I have explained it to you already. To establish her being alive at a later time (assuming he had already disposed of her) and to retrospectively introduce the possiblity that an abductor might have been in the apartment. Read the above, read it again, and then stoop and THINK about it, before making an additional dozen consecutive 'thinking out loud' nonsensical assertions! |
|
By:
It's ok I have read that, everyone knows that. I can assure you it makes no sense
now try and read what I have written and understand why it makes no sense |
|
By:
I agree with itcanbedone.
|
|
By:
It's simple. if he wants to establish that the children were still alive. he checks and comes back saying they are ok
if they are not there when someone raises the alarm later it matters not if the sort is open , or partially open or closed That is a meaningless detail. so stop throwing up dust |
|
By:
If he wants to pretend they are still there he comes back and tells his friends that they are ok
And the door is closed ,that is what someone staging an abduction would say Now I am not going to take you through this step by step |
|
By:
now try and read what I have written and understand why it makes no sense
i often think that lfc |
|
By:
Its inclusion has been enough to deem him to be innocent. These are intelligent people.
|
|
By:
(by you)
|
|
By:
The way McCann describes the scene is particularly powerful because he could not have known then, and may not know even now that it proved his innocence
I don't know if anyone else. police , or detectives , or journalists or writers have ever noticed this before |
|
By:
It only proves his innocence if it's true!
And, FWIW, I'm pretty sure it was Kate that walked us through this 'scene' in the interview in the Hyatt piece? |
|
By:
it is particularly powerful because McCann could not have know then, or even now that the way he describes the scene could not and would not have described in that way by someone guilty
It could only have been described in that way by someone innocent and someone innocent perhaps even now if how that description proves his innocence |
|
By:
lfc1971 there is a reason why noone else has noticed what you have
|
|
By:
Lay you don't understand. No one guilty would have described the scene as McCann did
The very fact that he described it that way proves his innocence It is what he described. And how he described it that prove his innocence Because they couldn't and would not have been said by someone guilty |
|
By:
I give up.
|
|
By:
Now you are going to have to do a little thinking for yourself. I am not prepared to keep trying to explain these simple but powerful things.
|
|
By:
I have explained it to you, you don't understand that's ok
I only had to work it out myself. and then try to make logical sense of it, that's not easy It's a lot easier for you to read and try to understand what is written, if you can't I can't help that |
|
By:
Please God lfc, if you are ever called up for Jury Duty, do your level best to avoid it. For the sake of all parties involved in the case.
You may, in fact, be the first case of a man being stood down from the legendary CCDA, a force that prides itself on it's incompetence. |
|
By:
^ here's another who should try harder to think logically
|
|
By:
Or perhaps promoted to lead the CCDA as an example of Best of Breed..
|
|
By:
now I have set out what must have happened. a bit jumbled because I was writing as I thought about it
But it is all there in the last two pages or so It proves imo the McCanns innocence |
|
By:
Read it. read all that I have said on this point of McCanns description.
Read it slowly as I describe and explain what it means Read it a few times until you understand it |
|
By:
well done lfc, so where is madeline ?
|
|
By:
It is McCanns description of what he saw at the apt that proves his innocence
especially so because he could not have known at the time, and may not even know now, that the way the described the scene would prove his innocence It is crucial and vital and he could not have described it in this way unless he was innocent |
|
By:
For my own sanity, I've just been back and checked P2 of the Hyatt programme. Kate makes no mention of saying that Gerry had noticed the door was open when he checked on them at 2105 (could just be how it's edited). She went to pull it closed when she checked at 2200 because she noticed it was open more than how they ("we") had left it, when it suddenly slammed shut.
|
|
By:
The chewbacca defence. Not seem it employed on the internet before. Impressive
|
|
By:
This is something that takes you to read carefully what I said to understand , it took logic and insight to work it out
you have only to read and try and make the attempt to understand. that is easier I can't do everything for you |
|
By:
deary me experienced posters allowing themselves to get tangled in lfc's net
|