|
By:
Was that insult aimed at me, LFC?
|
|
By:
sorry Torquemada. I thought that was tobermorey. You're right
|
|
By:
apologises, it wasn't to you
|
|
By:
No worries mate.
|
|
By:
I can't make up my mind whether they are guilty or not for what it's worth. There seems to me to be very compelling arguments on both sides.
|
|
By:
That's a pity I thought I had convinced you : )
maybe I've only convinced myself. |
|
By:
Obviously Gerry saying the door was not how it was the previous time suggests that 'the abductor' had moved it , and hidden under the bed when he heard Gerry come in .
If you are staging an abduction and people are sceptical that anyone could have got in and out and clean away unseen in the very small timeframe between Gerry's returning to the tapas and the next check ( only 15 minutes as Gerry stopped outside the apartment and chatted to a guy for a few minutes first) then it gives a lot more time if the abductor was already in there . Why you think a guilty person would not say something that would strengthen his claim of innocence is beyond me. |
|
By:
I have looked after young Children ,my own and Baby sat for relatives etc ,One of my daughters aged 18 months managed to get her head trapped between a mattress and a wooden arm on a bunk bed
Was a miracle I found her her Alive tbh . My brother inlaw took off on a night escapade at 3 years of age was found wandering the street at 4 in the Morning after letting himself out of the House .. You do not leave little kids alone END of ... To leave the 3 kids in an unlocked flat is beyond Belief ,these people ,both Doctors ,should Have been charged with neglect ,had they been an unemployed Junkie couple who knows where they would have ended up , the whole episode Stinks ,why were the Siblings left untouched ? and were the Siblings ever tested for Drugs or Medication ? |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask
Scum... |
|
By:
Good statement on Their GIG
"They should have had their children removed for their incompetence. These are to GP's ffs. Other people have had kids removed for a lot less." If that video was taken a couple of days after she went Missing ,HE KNOWS SHE IS NOT MISSING, his actions are that of an extremely Disturbed individual ,the loss of a child in these circumstances ,would render a person incapable ,for many many days .... |
|
By:
Still make's me really angry,surely police psychologists in this country have looked at their behaviour,we've seen it in past murders where far less suspicious parents have been caught out during their pleads for missing kids,yet these two vile pieces of work no one says a word it absolutely stinks.Anyone who has kids could not possibly think these two could be innocent,i'm not even convinced it was an accident as just absolutely no remorse,i didn't need to see that opening link on thread as his thoughts are exactly as most parents are thinking,it makes 100% sense..
|
|
By:
Still make's me really angry,surely police psychologists in this country have looked at their behaviour,we've seen it in past murders where far less suspicious parents have been caught out during their pleads for missing kids,yet these two vile pieces of work no one says a word it absolutely stinks.Anyone who has kids could not possibly think these two could be innocent,i'm not even convinced it was an accident as just absolutely no remorse,i didn't need to see that opening link on thread as his thoughts are exactly as most parents are thinking,it makes 100% sense..
|
|
By:
Tobermorey and the rest still don't understand
We know that Gerry suggesting the door had moved could, in theory, have been to pretend that someone was in the apt . Everyone knows that, that is very simple , everyone has always known it , I have always known it , you have always known it so don't mention it again when I try to explain what happened ! ! You are not saying anything that we all don't know. What I am saying is counter intuitive , it is not simple, it takes you to think carefully about gerrys statement. Unlike the idea that Gerry said the door had moved was to imply that there had been someone there. Because as I have already explained before if you read carefully what I said ..... Anyone planning a staged abduction and trying to pretend there had been an abduction could not and would not plan it so that ... someone was in the apt when Gerry first went to check That would be a ludicrous way to plan an abduction ! ! Can I make it any clearer ! I have already went through how anyone staging an abduction would say they had checked the apt and everything was fine they would not say the door had been moved because to stage an abduction in that way to imply that you had been in the apt at the same time as the abductor but walked away leaving the children does not make sense. If staging an abduction it is for the next person after Gerry to find the child gone a So finally to summarise : If Gerry staged an abduction he would not , could not say that the children were fine when he looked but the door appeared to have moved ...because that is a ludicrous way to stage an abduction ! ! He would have only said those words if that was actually as he saw it when he went back to check, If he was guilty he would not and could not have said those words Only someone innocent would have said those words . |
|
By:
someone guilty of a staged abduction would not and could not have said those words
Why not ? Because if you had staged an abduction that would be a ludicrous and impossible way to stage it. You would not stage it so that someone was in the apt when you checked You would stage it so that when you checked everything was fine It would be for the person after you to find the missing child and the door moved So anyone staging an abduction would not imply that someone was in the apt when they checked. This would only become a possibility and be as Gerry described it if that is what actually happened , not if Gerry had staged it No one would plan an abduction in that way, that is why Gerrys description of what he saw and what he said is not something that someone who planed to fake an abduction would say. Only someone describing what actually happened, only someone innocent would have said those words That is how Gerry described what he saw and those are his words Someone guilty would not and could not have said them Only someone innocent could have said those words. |
|
By:
can anyone else understand that ?
and if not what do you not understand ? |
|
By:
No, am not following lfc, would you mind running it past me again please?
Am certain you are on to something... |
|
By:
Assuming you're not on the windup, LFC, I think everyone understands what you're saying, it's just that no-one agrees with your assertion that it's something that only an innocent person would say.
|
|
By:
I have already submitted LFCs breakthrough theory to the relevant authorities in the hope of bagging the reward.
|
|
By:
They have replied to inform me that some men white coats will be visiting me in order to take an Official Statement.
|
|
By:
Lat , by your very comment you show that you do not understand what I am saying
If it is impossible that someone staging an abduction would have said what Gerry said and if only someone innocent could have said those words that those words themselves could only have been said innocenty and not staged And those are words that Gerry said And only an innocent person could have said those words Now I will ask again. what do you not understand ? |
|
By:
lfc1971 04 Feb 17 07:24 can anyone else understand that ? and if not what do you not understand ? Yes, we ALL understand. Now will you please STOP POSTING !!!!!! |
|
By:
I revert to my previous response. I give up.
|
|
By:
Lat, you will have to try harder. You have not said why you disagree with me
I am quite happy to listen and be proved wrong. That is fine , good Now tell me what it is that you disagree with exactly or stop posting silly nonsense |
|
By:
I told you why yesterday.
|
|
By:
Plenty of other people have told you why.
|
|
By:
REPORTED
|
|
By:
Tell me again, I am listening
I am quite happy to be proved wrong , that is fine |
|
By:
What do you disagree with in my explanation of what happened ?
Why that is what must have happened and why gerrys account must be true ? |
|
By:
I am going to have to go out now so will look in later
If anyone wants to disagree that's fine give reasons |
|
By:
so far lat. hasn't given any reasons, maybe someone else can.
|
|
By:
It's fine if someone can , that's good
But if you can't think logically and give a logical answer , don't say anything |
|
By:
will check later , if no one has anything sensible to say just shut up and say nothing.
I have set out what must have happened and how Gerry must have been telling the truth But more than that what he said would not have been said by someone guilty |
|
By:
will check later .
|
|
By:
I didn't want to come back here but felt I had to due to mccann friend lfc1971. NOTHING, absolutely nothing these people have said or done adds up,you can not take one comment when so many lies have been told.
THEY COULDNT EVEN DECIDE WHAT THEY CALLED THERE OWN DAUGHTER LFC1971 Hiding in plain sight. Confusion is good as gerry mccann once said. |
|
By:
Hiding in plain sight is a good tactic.
However, in lfc1971 's case it has failed miserably. He gives the impression that he's a complete nut job. There's only one problem with this . He is. |
|
By:
lfc1971
lfc1971 04 Feb 17 07:24 Joined: 06 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 11,419 | Blogger: lfc1971's blog can anyone else understand that ? and if not what do you not understand ? ......I do not understand how you manage to dress yourself in the morning. |
|
By:
Embedded Confessions.
Are you saying Richard D. Hall will be wrong for the FIRST TIME |
|
By:
It's worth a watch. Hall says very little. Fascinating to listen to Hyatt who dissects the statements and interviews.
Even if you have little interest in the case, the way he discusses the use of language is very good. |
|
By:
Page 12 of this link - the petermac piece on the tennis balls picture - looks like a lot of work has gone into the article
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8010p275-recap-on-the-tennis-balls-photo |
|
By:
It is like this :
It doesn't matter how many conflicting reports there might seem to be. It is simple, but counter intuitive. Try and understand this, If Gerry described checking on the children and they were all fine, and that he thought the door might have been moved If he said that, and described that scene , then it doesn't matter what else has been said. In that one statement he proved his innocence , why ? because anyone who had staged an abduction would never have said that. I have already explained why a number of times. read back over the explanation of why only someone innocent would have given the description Gerry gave it is a description that could not have been given as a planned way to make the police think there had to be an abduction because someone who planned a fake abduction could not , and would not , have given the description Gerry gave. that means the very fact that Gerry gave that description, and said those few words .... Must mean that he was describing the scene as he found it . someone lying and trying to stage a fake abduction could not have said it That must mean that those few words were said by an innocent man . |