Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mistyeyes321

I cannot believe that so many people are talking & trying to make excuses for two supposed men, Infering a sexual act regarding a child! Please I feel like i'm in a very bad dream here! Are you serious? You are saying that Rubbing your head & tummy could have been mistaken for a finger being sucked then circled around a Nipple in a supposed suggestive way?! It doesn't matter if someone still refer's to their child at 10 as their baby...My children are all grown up but they will always be my babies in my mind! This is point scoring at it's worst! We are talking about a 4 year old Child here...Why would a Doctor go out of her way to make a statement regarding this if not true? She could ruin her life by doing this everything she has worked for. Why would she make this up?! If she did make it up why hasn't the MCS sued her ass off?! Because I would take anyone to hell & back if they ever made a claim like this about me! Wouldn't you? This isn't rumour this is a Statement made to British Police & she didn't only see this one time she supposedly seen it twice...So maybe you can argue she might have been mistaken the first time but no way on two occasions! She is a inteligent Adult...I do however wonder why she didn't bring this out Earlier? But that doesn't mean she is lying! Now I will shut up & wait for the Rant's to begin!

PapaQuebec

maebee wrote: »

I do not believe that they wanted to kill their child. I could be wrong and hope I am but I suspect that Madeleine died accidentally in the apartment and that her body could not be presented for autopsy and had to be disposed of. How this was done, I do not know. Just my opinion.

Spot on (IMHO)!!!

dark crystal

Silver Moon wrote: »

if somebody in your responsbility dies accidently that does not make you a 'killer'

The McCanns and their friends are proven liars. That in itself does not make guilty of anything other than lying - however I am satisfied in my own mind that all of the Tapas 9 are guilty of much more than just lying and I remain confident that one day they will properly face the consequences of their actions.

If somebody in your responsibility dies from their own actions, no.

If somebody in your responsibility dies directly from your actions (i.e; a drugs overdose), it does indeed make you a killer.


Anyway, there's no point going back and forth on how others believe how and when the McCanns are supposed to have disposed of their daughter's body in a foreign country, in such a short space of time and such a callous, inhuman manner, whilst continuing to expose themselves to the police, public and media on a continual basis four years later, because I doubt I will get a satisfactory answer to that one.

I certainly don't believe any of the theories as to how or why they did it make any logical sense, in fact, some of the theories are so fantastical as to be laughable, so I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on those fundemental points.

Still, like everyone else, I hope the truth is uncovered one day and Madeleine can finally be put to rest.

dark crystal

TheZohan wrote: »

As a parent if, god forbid, something happened to one of your children, would you do everything in your power to protect your other children? You said that you wouldn't think of career or friends but you didn't mention anything about other children.
Bear in mind if you were convicted or killing your daughter, were put in jail and lost custody of your other children then chances are they'd want to have nothing to do with you when they're old enough to understand what had happened. You lose everything.

.

I'll be totally and utterly honest here. There is no way in hell if I discovered one of my children dead, I would hatch a plan to dispose of her like rubbish and pretend she was kidnapped. No way in hell.

These parents had no history of abuse or neglect - if they held their hands up and said "We made a mistake, we gave her too much calpol (or whatever they're supposed to have used) and she died", chances are, they might have been charged with some sort of wreckless endangerment causing the death of a minor charge, but certainly not locked away for life or anything like it.

Now, imagine if it comes out that not only have they killed their daughter, but have then have disposed of her body, made up a false abduction claim, wasted police time and money, fraudulently made money from the Madeleine fund and obstructed the investigation of a crime, how much of a sentence do you think they would get then? They'd very likely be jailed for most of the rest of their natural born lives.

Makes no sense!

Also, in the few hours people claim this crime could have taken place, I'm still waiting for an explaination (a sensible one) as to where the McCanns could have hidden her body to such an extent, it has never been found by anyone. Somewhere so remote or deep, it must have taken hours to bring her there, dispose of her and then get back in time to act like a distraught parent. When was this done?

Makes no sense!


There is just no part of this murder theory that makes an ounce of logical sense to me, I'm afraid!

lugha

maebee wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea why DP allowed himself to be heard by Katrina Gaspar when he was making these remarks. Maybe he spoke in an unguarded moment, let it slip, didn't think she could hear him. I don't know.

She was sitting between them so I don’t think that is plausible. Like much of the so-called evidence against the McCanns, there is a serious problem with it.

maebee wrote: »

I just happen to believe her.

It is not necessary to doubt her word on what happened, only her interpretation of what happened. And I don’t think anybody can reliably asses second hand, if somebody has interpreted something or other correctly or not.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

I'll be totally and utterly honest here. There is no way in hell if I discovered one of my children dead, I would hatch a plan to dispose of her like rubbish and pretend she was kidnapped. No way in hell.

These parents had no history of abuse or neglect - if they held their hands up and said "We made a mistake, we gave her too much calpol (or whatever they're supposed to have used) and she died", chances are, they might have been charged with some sort of wreckless endangerment causing the death of a minor charge, but certainly not locked away for life or anything like it.

Now, imagine if it comes out that not only have they killed their daughter, but have then have disposed of her body, made up a false abduction claim, wasted police time and money, fraudulently made money from the Madeleine fund and obstructed the investigation of a crime, how much of a sentence do you think they would get then? They'd very likely be jailed for most of the rest of their natural born lives.

Makes no sense!

Also, in the few hours people claim this crime could have taken place, I'm still waiting for an explaination (a sensible one) as to where the McCanns could have hidden her body to such an extent, it has never been found by anyone. Somewhere so remote or deep, it must have taken hours to bring her there, dispose of her and then get back in time to act like a distraught parent. When was this done?

Makes no sense!


There is just no part of this murder theory that makes an ounce of logical sense to me, I'm afraid!

But many people in this thread have claimed that logical explanations/expectations of how a person is supposed to react in situations are not valid in reality when the McCann's actions were questioned, so surely the same logical reasoning goes out the window if a person had, by accident, caused the death of their child through administrating drugs or too high a dosage to their child?


Afterall if logical or expected responses are argued against for one thing, then the same applies to this, otherwise we have to take logical reasoning as being the way to go with the other situations in this case and as such the McCann's other actions have to be cast in doubt for the people who claimed that logical explanations could not be used against the McCanns in their situation.

Mountainsandh

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I cannot believe that so many people are talking & trying to make excuses for two supposed men, Infering a sexual act regarding a child!QUOTE]

Not making excuses for 2 men inferring a sexual act regarding a child.

But pointing out that this lady doctor could
a) have a sick dirty mind and twisted a perfectly innocent act into something awful and sexual.
b) have been drunk/or sober, and not perceived things as they were.

It's not a given that what she describes is what David Payne did.
It's not even a given he did something.

It's her perception, in hindsight.
it's not on CCTV, if you want.
The only back up she has, is her husband, who doesn't seem half as convinced as she is, and says he only saw a gesture once.

Her statement was not used/retained for evidence, and there is no reason for the McCanns to sue since they are not guilty of their friend doing an inappropriate gesture if that was the case.
As it happens, in her statement the only remote indication that other people there might have seen something is that "there was a nervous break in the conversation".

You know when you're with friends around a table, there's lots of talking happening, and then sometimes there's a little pause, and then everyone starts talking again... (we have a saying for that in French, we say : "un ange passe" >> an angel passes by) it's not necessarily a "nervous" break. How do we know that's not simply what happened ? How do we know there was a real break, or it was just people happened to pause in their stories at the same moment, for a few seconds. How do we know it was "nervous", if indeed there was a break ?
We have to take the lady's word for it.

Apparently the police couldn't, since they didn't use the statement.

If I was to take your stance, I would say that I find it shocking that people think it's perfectly ok for a woman to witness a father possibly displaying peadophile behaviour towards his own daughter, and not to say anything about it until a little girl disappears.
If this lady was so shocked at the behaviour, wouldn't you think she would have approached Kate or Gerry about it before the end of the holiday ? Failing that, shouldn't she have told the police or a child protection agency ?

If you witnessed a father displaying such behaviour, would you do/say nothing (except once a child had gone missing) ? If you were absolutely sure of what you saw ?

If you're not fully sure of what you saw, can you use it as evidence against someone ?

AudreyHepburn

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I cannot believe that so many people are talking & trying to make excuses for two supposed men, Infering a sexual act regarding a child! Please I feel like i'm in a very bad dream here! Are you serious? You are saying that Rubbing your head & tummy could have been mistaken for a finger being sucked then circled around a Nipple in a supposed suggestive way?! It doesn't matter if someone still refer's to their child at 10 as their baby...My children are all grown up but they will always be my babies in my mind! This is point scoring at it's worst! We are talking about a 4 year old Child here...Why would a Doctor go out of her way to make a statement regarding this if not true? She could ruin her life by doing this everything she has worked for. Why would she make this up?! If she did make it up why hasn't the MCS sued her ass off?! Because I would take anyone to hell & back if they ever made a claim like this about me! Wouldn't you? This isn't rumour this is a Statement made to British Police & she didn't only see this one time she supposedly seen it twice...So maybe you can argue she might have been mistaken the first time but no way on two occasions! She is a inteligent Adult...I do however wonder why she didn't bring this out Earlier? But that doesn't mean she is lying! Now I will shut up & wait for the Rant's to begin!

No-one is defending anything. All we are saying, as you well know, is that Mrs. Gaspar might have misinterpretted what she saw. We are question why she didn't bother to report the incident before Madeleine went missing if she really was that disturbed by it.

But in any case there is absolutly not one shred of evidence that Madeleine or her siblings were being abused by David, Gerry or anyone else.

maebee wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

Why would two people went paedophile tendencies risk exposing themselves? It seems utterly implausible to me.

QUOTE]

I have absolutely no idea why DP allowed himself to be heard by Katrina Gaspar when he was making these remarks. Maybe he spoke in an unguarded moment, let it slip, didn't think she could hear him. I don't know. I just happen to believe her.







I'm repeating myself here so for the last time, I believe that Madeleine died accidentally and that her body could not be presented for autopsy because it could have shown signs of abuse. I hope that I am wrong but after four years of following this tragic case, sadly, this is my belief.

So it is ok for and others to believe Mrs. Gaspar's statement without out any proof of the incident or of the children have been abused but it is not ok for others including myself to believe what the McCanns say?

Double standards, no?

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So it is ok for and others to believe Mrs. Gaspar's statement without out any proof of the incident or of the children have been abused but it is not ok for others including myself to believe what the McCanns say?

Double standards, no?

Who said it wasnt ok for you to believe that ? You are welcome to beleive what you wish , It doesnt mean people have to agree with you though .

lugha

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I cannot believe that so many people are talking & trying to make excuses for two supposed men, Infering a sexual act regarding a child! Please I feel like i'm in a very bad dream here! Are you serious? You are saying that Rubbing your head & tummy could have been mistaken for a finger being sucked then circled around a Nipple in a supposed suggestive way?

No I am not. I don’t know why this point is causing such confusion?
The head and tummy thing was a challenge we engaged in as children. And you would invite someone to partake in the challenge by asking “can you do this”, words not very different to those used by the two men.

You move your left hand in a circular fashion around your tummy but you tap the top of your head with the right. It is quite difficult to refrain from engaging in similar motions with both hands (i.e. they will both tend to tap or both tend to circle). Try it and you will see what I mean.

I suggest that perhaps it was a minor variation of this challenge (which is equally difficult to do) that the men were discussing, with one asking: Can Madeleine do this?

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. Perhaps it was some other innocent gesture than was being made? Or perhaps it really was as sinister as the witness interpreted it? But if you favour the last explanation, you have the rather difficult challenge of explaining why two paedophiles would be so candid about revealing their perversion to a total stranger. Seriously implausibly IMO.

maebee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

If you're not fully sure of what you saw, can you use it as evidence against someone ?

I don't know who you mean when you ask "Can you use it as evidence?" When someone gives a statement to the police, it's the police/prosecutor who either use it or don't use it. If one is to follow your sentence above, there is no point in anyone making any statement to any police force.

Chicke

The thing is how did they dispose of the body.
The smiths family saw someone going towards the beach at 9.55 ,and indeed after the mccanns were declared as arguidos they maintained it was Gerry,but as far as I know he was back in the tapas bar at that stage(definitely by 10 when Kate returned)
So how was a little girls body disposed of between 10 and 11 before the police turned up ,in a foreign place where they didn't know the territory and where there were people teeming around that would have noticed the absence of either parent at this critical time
I do not for one minute believe that the little girl died before the meal and the parents hid the body during this time.there is no way in my view that the accidental death of their child would allow them to sit down and eat their meal normally as if nothing happened.and it wasn't just the tapas 7 who saw nothing odd in their behaviour at the meal that night but the non tapas 7 acquaintance of Gerry that he bumped into at 9.15
I ask thus question hoping for ideas backed up by possible evidence or
oddness that occurred after 10 that night?
I find the recent allegations by Kate if the intruder drugging the children extremely revealing.I actually think she is very manipulative and sees herself as very clever I also see her as extremely driven in keeping the remainder of her family together.cone what may.
I believe,she drugged the kids.otherwise,they would have woken up during the night they were moved to another apartment!
Indeed one of the Tapas 7'who were with her that night said she was going in checking the it breathing of the
twins putting her hand just above their mouths.
Maybe this was reason for her not searching,in that that she wanted to be close
by in case of emergency
And in typical Kate fashion,instead of admitting the truth but realising that the way the twins remained asleep was suspicious ,she transferred blame of the drugging onto the abductor.
Ppp




Again

genericguy

dark crystal wrote: »

Team McCann is it? This isn't just some internet game of Cleudo, it involves real people who have lost a child.

....and who initially failed to make any attempt to look for her, demolished the crime scene before calling the police, and have since spent have made countless effort to impede the investigation into her disappearance... whose response to her disappearance was to hire a team of lawyers and a PR coordinator. who refused to assist the police in their investigation and answer questions which may establish a coherent version of the events in which their child was supposedly snatched.

you meant to add those bits too, right?

querys

I think if they are innocent of phyiscally harming their daughter the guilt they must feel for leaving her alone with the twins must be eating them alive.

maebee

Article from George Laird, former classmate of Gerry McCann at Glasgow University.

http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/2011/05/met-police-will-carry-out-review-of.html

goat2

TheZohan wrote: »

As a parent if, god forbid, something happened to one of your children, would you do everything in your power to protect your other children? You said that you wouldn't think of career or friends but you didn't mention anything about other children.
Bear in mind if you were convicted or killing your daughter, were put in jail and lost custody of your other children then chances are they'd want to have nothing to do with you when they're old enough to understand what had happened. You lose everything.

I am not for one second calling them callous killers, all I'm doing here is keeping an open mind. You asked why might someone cover up the death of their daughter and I gave you a plausible answer.

yes as a parent if one of us accidentially killed our child, then the person who accidentially killed him/her would take the rap, and deal with the consequences, the other parent would carry on rearing the others, because the person who was the cause of the accident in the first place would find it hard to lie, and put of a front, and i do beleive that if that happened the mccannes they would do same, and anyway if either they or one of their friends harmed her, they would have been caught out long time ago, if you remember the soham girls, the care taker was brought into the spotlight by a body language expert,
the mccans and their friends who were at dinner i am sure have been carefully anayzed also, and there is nothing to show that they are guilty,
i beleive them, and i am hoping for a good result for them and their daughter

iamwhoiam

maebee wrote: »

Article from George Laird, former classmate of Gerry McCann at Glasgow University.

http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/2011/05/met-police-will-carry-out-review-of.html

"" Kate McCann is alleged to have said “the kidnapper” who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children.

If she thought they were drugged, why didn’t she taken them to hospital on the night Madeleine disappeared to get checked?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for human Rights at Glasgow University """



Exactaly ., any doctor , nurse or indeed parent who suspected their children were drugged would have an ambulance called and the children checked over .A GP who supected a two year old patient of being drugged would have toxicology done and the child brought to a safe place

If Kate Mc Cann genuinely thought her twins had been drugged then she let them down by ignoring the danger ./ As a GP she knew the dangers of over dose in paediatric patients and should have acted accordingly .
A child who has had an unprescriped medicine or drug given is monitored very carefully and checks done very freguently .How remiss of their GP mother not to have followed up on this .

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I cannot believe that so many people are talking & trying to make excuses for two supposed men, Infering a sexual act regarding a child!QUOTE]

Not making excuses for 2 men inferring a sexual act regarding a child.

But pointing out that this lady doctor could
a) have a sick dirty mind and twisted a perfectly innocent act into something awful and sexual.
b) have been drunk/or sober, and not perceived things as they were.

It's not a given that what she describes is what David Payne did.
It's not even a given he did something.

It's her perception, in hindsight.
it's not on CCTV, if you want.
The only back up she has, is her husband, who doesn't seem half as convinced as she is, and says he only saw a gesture once.

Her statement was not used/retained for evidence, and there is no reason for the McCanns to sue since they are not guilty of their friend doing an inappropriate gesture if that was the case.
As it happens, in her statement the only remote indication that other people there might have seen something is that "there was a nervous break in the conversation".

You know when you're with friends around a table, there's lots of talking happening, and then sometimes there's a little pause, and then everyone starts talking again... (we have a saying for that in French, we say : "un ange passe" >> an angel passes by) it's not necessarily a "nervous" break. How do we know that's not simply what happened ? How do we know there was a real break, or it was just people happened to pause in their stories at the same moment, for a few seconds. How do we know it was "nervous", if indeed there was a break ?
We have to take the lady's word for it.

Apparently the police couldn't, since they didn't use the statement.

If I was to take your stance, I would say that I find it shocking that people think it's perfectly ok for a woman to witness a father possibly displaying peadophile behaviour towards his own daughter, and not to say anything about it until a little girl disappears.
If this lady was so shocked at the behaviour, wouldn't you think she would have approached Kate or Gerry about it before the end of the holiday ? Failing that, shouldn't she have told the police or a child protection agency ?

If you witnessed a father displaying such behaviour, would you do/say nothing (except once a child had gone missing) ? If you were absolutely sure of what you saw ?

If you're not fully sure of what you saw, can you use it as evidence against someone ?

I clearly stated at the end of this post ..I do wonder why she didn't bring this out sooner...I do understand what your saying here...You & others can Speculate till the cows come home...It doesn't alter the Fact this Lady went out of her way to make this statement WHY? considering if found to be making poky's up she could well face losing her job of which she has spent so long trying to achieve? Why if she had a shadow of a Doubt would she want to put herself in that situation? & why would she Name David Payne & Gerry Mccann? Why? This Statement was given to the British Police. Why was they not Passed to the PJ? Considering they we're looking for a Three year old Child? Why was they withheld for so long?! I would also like to know if David Payne & Gerry Mccann have consulted a Solicitor regarding this Statement? If not Why Not? This is a Statement insinuating Lewd act's to a Minor...Now the last time I looked this was still against the Law's of this Country & just accusing someone of this disgusting Behaviour was also a Offence. As it should be..You can't just walk around accusing people of act's like this & for them to just ignore it???! Seriously people can twist & turn this anyway they like, It will never alter the fact this statement exist's or for that matter Why is exist's without being Addressed!!

Mistyeyes321

lugha wrote: »

No I am not. I don’t know why this point is causing such confusion?
The head and tummy thing was a challenge we engaged in as children. And you would invite someone to partake in the challenge by asking “can you do this”, words not very different to those used by the two men.

You move your left hand in a circular fashion around your tummy but you tap the top of your head with the right. It is quite difficult to refrain from engaging in similar motions with both hands (i.e. they will both tend to tap or both tend to circle). Try it and you will see what I mean.

I suggest that perhaps it was a minor variation of this challenge (which is equally difficult to do) that the men were discussing, with one asking: Can Madeleine do this?

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. Perhaps it was some other innocent gesture than was being made? Or perhaps it really was as sinister as the witness interpreted it? But if you favour the last explanation, you have the rather difficult challenge of explaining why two paedophiles would be so candid about revealing their perversion to a total stranger. Seriously implausibly IMO.

Yes I do remember the game clearly myself! Again nothing what so ever similar in anyway! I don't have to explain anything Sir/Madam this isn't a Joke & we're not stood in a Court Room so no your wrong & speculate away! It still doesn't answer why a Women would walk into a Police station who by the way just happened to be a Friend & make this Claim about these two men, Who we're then in the Middle of a Missing Child supposed abduction!

goat2

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Yes I do remember the game clearly myself! Again nothing what so ever similar in anyway! I don't have to explain anything Sir/Madam this isn't a Joke & we're not stood in a Court Room so no your wrong & speculate away! It still doesn't answer why a Women would walk into a Police station who by the way just happened to be a Friend & make this Claim about these two men, Who we're then in the Middle of a Missing Child supposed abduction!

maybe a **** stirrer

Mistyeyes321

goat2 wrote: »

maybe a **** stirrer

And maybe Not!

maebee

iamwhoiam wrote: »

"" Kate McCann is alleged to have said “the kidnapper” who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children.
QUOTE]

Kate McCann did indeed use the term "Kidnapper" (for the first time afaik) last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

I always thought a kidnapper demanded a ransom as opposed to an abductor who doesn't.

Speaking of which, it's very strange how, from day one they never ever mentioned the reward.

goat2

maebee wrote: »

iamwhoiam wrote: »

"" Kate McCann is alleged to have said “the kidnapper” who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children.
QUOT

Kate McCann did indeed use the term "Kidnapper" (for the first time afaik) last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

I always thought a kidnapper demanded a ransom as opposed to an abductor who doesn't.

Speaking of which, it's very strange how, from day one they never ever mentioned the ransom.

abductor, kidnapper, same meaning, nothing strange about using either in this case

Silver Moon

the mccanns never mention the reward either

genericguy

Silver Moon wrote: »

the mccanns never mention the reward either

Yes, because they are fully certain that nobody's ever going to get it.

Mountainsandh

maebee wrote: »

I don't know who you mean when you ask "Can you use it as evidence?" When someone gives a statement to the police, it's the police/prosecutor who either use it or don't use it. If one is to follow your sentence above, there is no point in anyone making any statement to any police force.

It's my wording that was problematic maebee I think, the sentence should read :

Can the police use it as evidence ? The "you" was meant as impersonal : "people" meaning in this case : the police.

maebee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's my wording that was problematic maebee I think, the sentence should read :

Can the police use it as evidence ? The "you" was meant as impersonal : "people" meaning in this case : the police.

Fairy nuff Mountains

lugha

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Yes I do remember the game clearly myself! Again nothing what so ever similar in anyway!

What are you on about? What I describe is in principle, almost identical to that game. I think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I don't have to explain anything

No I guess you don't. But if nobody can offer a plausible explantion as to why two paedophiles would be so candid about their deviances with a total stranger, then this evidence is seriously undermined. Can you honestly not see this problem?

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

It still doesn't answer why a Women would walk into a Police station who by the way just happened to be a Friend & make this Claim about these two men,

This has been answered. This women believed that this information was inportant and informed the police of it. But for the information to be of any worth, it would require that her interpretation of what she saw be correct. It is this interpretation that some of us question, not her integrity or honesty.

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

What are you on about? What I describe is in principle, almost identical to that game. I think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.


.

patting your head and rubbing your tummy is so not like the description given by Mrs Gaspar . Its far from like it or could be mistaken for it .How many times have people seen the patting head rubbing tummy and thought it meant something else ?

lugha

iamwhoiam wrote: »

patting your head and rubbing your tummy is so not like the description given by Mrs Gaspar . Its far from like it or could be mistaken for it .How many times have people seen the patting head rubbing tummy and thought it meant something else ?

I am suggesting that what Gaspar saw might be a variation of that game. i.e. one finger going forward and back, one moving around in a circle. And thus that it was an innocent gesture and not the sinister one she saw.

I am obviously not suggesting that one of the men was tapping his head but Gapser thought he was putting his finger in his mouth!