Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

midlandsmissus

Apparent new photo of Madeleine spotted by businessmen on a plane to Bulgaria.

I came across to this website by complete random, don't think this image has been shown in mainstream media before:

http://www.conniesonne.dk/25057823?i=30558271

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

As I said before, you are on this thread since page one and have made many uninformed comments. I am a McCann sceptic but I have studied both sides of the story. That is all I was asking you to do. I really am surprised that you didn't know that the Official Files were released to journalists in 2008 and that they have been translated on many sites, mccannfiles.com being the one that I use as the translations were done by police translators.

First please drop the patronising tone, it won't make me agree with you any quicker.

Second as I said I really didn't realise the PJ files were available online, I assumed that when people said they'd read them they had somehow gotten their hands on the actual files or read snippets in books.

Third just because I happen to believe the abductor theory does not make me uninformed. Do you actually believe a person only qualifies as informed if they suspect the McCanns?

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First please drop the patronising tone, it won't make me agree with you any quicker.

Second as I said I really didn't realise the PJ files were available online, I assumed that when people said they'd read them they had somehow gotten their hands on the actual files or read snippets in books.

Third just because I happen to believe the abductor theory does not make me uninformed. Do you actually believe a person only qualifies as informed if they suspect the McCanns?

You thought boardsies had got access to actual files??

No-one wants you to agree or disagree with their version of events. You are an adult capable of making up you own mind

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

You thought boardsies had got access to actual files??

No-one wants you to agree or disagree with their version of events. You are an adult capable of making up you own mind

Maebee has told me I should not attempt to discredit the files and that only after I read them should I comment because only then will I be informed.

Seems to me like he/she wants me to agree with his/her opinion.

DexyDrain

The files are available on request, they come on a DVD. They are in Portugese, apparently the McCanns spent over half a million pounds to get them translated for their own use.

That photo posted above is priceless, White? Check. Blonde? Check. Bingo! It's definitely not Bin Laden or Lord Lucan though, which raises 'disturbing questions' as to the child's true identity.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maebee has told me I should not attempt to discredit the files and that only after I read them should I comment because only then will I be informed.

Seems to me like he/she wants me to agree with his/her opinion.

I took it more as a case of 'inform yourself'. I did not see any malice beyond that.

TheZohanS

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29658537/PJ-Report-English-Translation#archive

Enjoy!

Little Acorn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maebee has told me I should not attempt to discredit the files and that only after I read them should I comment because only then will I be informed.

Seems to me like he/she wants me to agree with his/her opinion.

I don't think that maebee is saying that if you read the files that you will definitely then agree with her opinion.
I think it's just so that you could at least be aware of what evidence is presently available, so that you could make a more informed decision for yourself.
She's not saying that after reading, your decision would be that they are guilty of something.
You could read those files, and still firmly believe that they are completely innocent of any wrong doing[aside from leaving the kids alone].
The files just present the information, they don't say the mccanns are 100% guilty and they don't say they are 100% innocent, it's just factual information, photographs, and testimonies.
It is up to yourself what you make of or take from the information.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maebee has told me I should not attempt to discredit the files and that only after I read them should I comment because only then will I be informed.

Seems to me like he/she wants me to agree with his/her opinion.

I took it very differntly and that maebee was simply saying to inform yourself . I saw no reference to how you should think .

maebee

sunflower27 wrote: »

I took it more as a case of 'inform yourself'. I did not see any malice beyond that.

That is exactly what I meant sunflower. There are two sides to every story and to comment fairly one needs to be informed of both sides. Simple really and not at all patronising.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First please drop the patronising tone, it won't make me agree with you any quicker.

I am not trying to make you agree with me. I really am not bothered what you think. I only asked that you study both sides of the story.

Second as I said I really didn't realise the PJ files were available online, I assumed that when people said they'd read them they had somehow gotten their hands on the actual files or read snippets in books.

This is what I was trying to say. If you had informed yourself, you would not have had to assume.

Third just because I happen to believe the abductor theory does not make me uninformed. Do you actually believe a person only qualifies as informed if they suspect the McCanns?

What makes you uninformed is your not having read the police files.
I believe a person qualifies as informed, on any subject, when they have studied all aspects of the subject, which in this case, you have not, by your own admission.

maebee

Little Acorn wrote: »

I don't think that maebee is saying that if you read the files that you will definitely then agree with her opinion.
I think it's just so that you could at least be aware of what evidence is presently available, so that you could make a more informed decision for yourself.
She's not saying that after reading, your decision would be that they are guilty of something.
You could read those files, and still firmly believe that they are completely innocent of any wrong doing[aside from leaving the kids alone].
The files just present the information, they don't say the mccanns are 100% guilty and they don't say they are 100% innocent, it's just factual information, photographs, and testimonies.
It is up to yourself what you make of or take from the information.

Thank you Little Acorn for putting so eloquently into words what I couldn't do. This is exactly what I meant.

AskMyChocolate

K-9 wrote: »

It shows that it is possible the McCann's could have done something similar. Very unlikely albeit, but some posters are open to the suggestion, others don't even want to contemplate it. It isn't a nice thing to imagine, still doesn't mean these type of cases never happen as some appear to be suggesting.

The big question for me is, where did they hide Madeline between her "kidnapping" and when they hired the car? 3 weeks later.

Heh K-9. I addressed this earlier in the thread but I'm not sure who saw it and who didn't. It is quite possible that Madeleine's body was disposed of on the night of the disappearance and that it was only her blood-stained pyjamas that had to be disposed of later. AGAIN JUST A THEORY before anybody jumps down my throat.

Mistyeyes321

Kess73 wrote: »

Kate got herself tested month later as the police had asked her early in the case if she was on any medication for stress caused by the children before she came to Portugal.

The McCanns reacted with their usual outrage to the question and then waited until September to have someone of their choosing back in England test Kate and the police had to then go through quite a bit of international red tape in order to request to see those findings.

But the McCann's outrage quietened down a bit when Kate's own journal was found to have had entries about having trouble dealing with the children and had mentions of stress etc.

So the question asked was never actually answered, instead the police were told that a drugs test taken some four months after the child went missing said that Kate had nothing in her system, but as to whether or not there were drugs in her system or those of the twins on the night the child went missing we can never know for sure as the drug tests were months later and as such cannot be 100% in terms of saying she did or did not have something in her system on an exact day, whereas if she and the twins had been tested when asked then a far more accurate result would have been gotten.

I see so she could have had abit of depression some thought? Well I don't see why the big reaction from the Mcs does depression not Effect Doctor's then?! Sure it does as it does alot of people it's not something to hide especially after just having Children. It's not a dirty little secret to be ashamed of it's a Chemical imbalance!...I don't get why all the untrust! Why Would it have made a difference to the pj?! I can't get over how they was allowed to refuse these test's i'm sure if I was in their situation it wouldn't have crossed my mind to refuse or even think I could refuse!!
Even if Mrs M did have depression & stress doesn't mean a thing it doesn't make her any more Dangerous than anyone else! Infact I think most people would be able to relate to it...So why does she have to hide it? That's of course if she is!
Was there talk of Maddie being given to a family member?! I don't get why the Mcs seem to give the impression they have to be perfect because none of us are maybe this is another reason they come across as being Cold! Maybe it's one of the thing's they have been left with after the way they was treated in the Press?! Although the UK Press have been very good to them IMHO!

AudreyHepburn

Alright look I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you Maebee but I don't take kindly to being told I am uninformed and that I should not comment until I am informed ie until I have read the files and changed my opinion (that's how I read that). I also don't like being told I should 'not attempt to dismiss' them. What right have you to tell me how to react to them?

I'll read them no problem but if I still haven't changed my mind that's is something you are going to have to accept.

Plus folks I really didn't know the files were that available, I am not lying about that.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Alright look I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you Maebee but I don't take kindly to being told I am uninformed and that I should not comment until I am informed ie until I have read the files and changed my opinion (that's how I read that). I also don't like being told I should 'not attempt to dismiss' them. What right have you to tell me how to react to them?

I'll read them no problem but if I still haven't changed my mind that's is something you are going to have to accept.

Plus folks I really didn't know the files were that available, I am not lying about that.

Again, no-one here is trying to change your mind. i don't know why you keep saying that. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the case. Not to get you to move to the 'other side'.

And I think the point about not dismissing them is to not dismiss them as false or inaccurate.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Again, no-one here is trying to change your mind. i don't know why you keep saying that. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the case. Not to get you to move to the 'other side'.

And I think the point about not dismissing them is to not dismiss them as false or inaccurate.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. If I am not to say they false/inaccurate I can only then say they are correct and the McCanns must therefore be hiding something. Thus changing my mind.

As I said I'll come to my own conclusions and dismiss them as I choose.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

sunflower27 wrote: »

Again, no-one here is trying to change your mind. i don't know why you keep saying that. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the case. Not to get you to move to the 'other side'.

And I think the point about not dismissing them is to not dismiss them as false or inaccurate.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. If I am not to say they false/inaccurate I can only then say they are correct and the McCanns must therefore be hiding something. Thus changing my mind.

As I said I'll come to my own conclusions and dismiss them as I choose.

By all means come to your own conclusions, really, no-one cares.

AskMyChocolate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I see so she could have had abit of depression some thought? Well I don't see why the big reaction from the Mcs does depression not Effect Doctor's then?! Sure it does as it does alot of people it's not something to hide especially after just having Children. It's not a dirty little secret to be ashamed of it's a Chemical imbalance!...I don't get why all the untrust! Why Would it have made a difference to the pj?! I can't get over how they was allowed to refuse these test's i'm sure if I was in their situation it wouldn't have crossed my mind to refuse or even think I could refuse!!
Even if Mrs M did have depression & stress doesn't mean a thing it doesn't make her any more Dangerous than anyone else! Infact I think most people would be able to relate to it...So why does she have to hide it? That's of course if she is!
Was there talk of Maddie being given to a family member?! I don't get why the Mcs seem to give the impression they have to be perfect because none of us are maybe this is another reason they come across as being Cold! Maybe it's one of the thing's they have been left with after the way they was treated in the Press?! Although the UK Press have been very good to them IMHO!

Heh Misty. You have to understand that there are people in this thread who are so sure, that they will be the ones to judge. They can't just judge evidence on its merits. They come in to the argument with an agenda and then try to fit the evidence to what they have decided.
I've taken abuse from both sides.

The only thing that is certain is that anyone who thinks that the McCann parents are 100% innocent for no reason,other than the fact that they want them to be innocent, given the facts, needs their head examined.

And anyone, who thinks it's reasonable to convict the McCann parents on the circumstansial evidence available is not fit to sit on a jury. I would hope that any judge worth his salt would direct the jury to find them not guilty and not even let a trial to take place.

I would imagine this was the position of the Portuguese DPP when he told both the Portuguese and British police to stop wasting his time and GTFO of my office.

AskMyChocolate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I see so she could have had abit of depression some thought? Well I don't see why the big reaction from the Mcs does depression not Effect Doctor's then?! Sure it does as it does alot of people it's not something to hide especially after just having Children. It's not a dirty little secret to be ashamed of it's a Chemical imbalance!...I don't get why all the untrust! Why Would it have made a difference to the pj?! I can't get over how they was allowed to refuse these test's i'm sure if I was in their situation it wouldn't have crossed my mind to refuse or even think I could refuse!!
Even if Mrs M did have depression & stress doesn't mean a thing it doesn't make her any more Dangerous than anyone else! Infact I think most people would be able to relate to it...So why does she have to hide it? That's of course if she is!
Was there talk of Maddie being given to a family member?! I don't get why the Mcs seem to give the impression they have to be perfect because none of us are maybe this is another reason they come across as being Cold! Maybe it's one of the thing's they have been left with after the way they was treated in the Press?! Although the UK Press have been very good to them IMHO!

You should Google the side-affects of anti-depressants. In particular you should look at the side-affects of a drug called Seroxat. Panorama did two programmes on it. The good and the bad. I am not saying for one second that K McCann was on Seroxat. But Glaxo-Smyth-Kline Beecham will do anything to ensure that Madeleine's death had nothing to do with them.

And there is no amount of money that they won't spend in order to avoid a test case.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Alright look I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you Maebee but I don't take kindly to being told I am uninformed and that I should not comment until I am informed ie until I have read the files and changed my opinion (that's how I read that). I also don't like being told I should 'not attempt to dismiss' them. What right have you to tell me how to react to them?

Apology accepted. For the last time Audrey, I just asked you to read the files so that you would be fully informed about the case, because you weren't. I did not ask or hope that you change your mind.

I'll read them no problem but if I still haven't changed my mind that's is something you are going to have to accept.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what opinion you hold.

Plus folks I really didn't know the files were that available, I am not lying about that.

Fairy nuff.

AskMyChocolate

dark crystal wrote: »

Well, when you put it like that, they MUST be guilty! I mean, killing one's spouse in a fit of rage or jealousy or greed is the same as disposing of your beloved daughter as if she was rubbish in order to save your own skin, whilst continuing to both pretend to grieve and expose yourself to the scrutiny of the police, public and media years afterwards

This is descending into a conspiracy theory thread now at this stage and having looked at some of the other websites quoted here, dedicated soley to try and paint Gerry and Kate McCann as callous child murderers and their friends as liars, conspirators and swingers, it's not something I have any interest in taking part in, tbh.

I've still not been anywhere near convinced that these people had any hand nor part in ther child's death or been given any viable explaination as to how, where or when they had the oppurtunity to dispose of her body.

With all due respect, I will leave the thread and continue to believe in the McCanns innocence until they are proven otherwise by indisputable proof in a court of law. I doubt anyone who believes in the innocence of the McCanns will change anyone else's mind and we are in the vast minority here, so it is becoming futile at this stage to try and put our arguments across.

Like everyone else here, I hope the perpertrators are one day brought to justice, whoever they are and Madeleine and her family can finally find some peace.

Sorry, DC, I was the one who called them swingers. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark. Had you actually read the whole post you would have realised that it was my reasoning as to why the wiping of phones and CC details might not be suspicious. Now, maybe, that doesn't fit with your moralistic view of the McCann parents being as pure as the driven snow, but it is reasonable,plausible and would be consistent with them being innocent of any wrongdoing (except in your eyes).

There is nothing wrong with "swinging" and it doesn't make you a child abuser, except in the eyes of judgemental people.

As to a viable explanation as to how they got rid of the body; well I explained that in earlier posts. You just chose not to read them.

Btw, please feel free to remove your thanks from the post I made earlier on explaining how if G McCann can be established at the Tapas bar then the Smith testimony lets him out.

Choco (neutral)

dark crystal

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Sorry, DC, I was the one who called them swingers. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark. Had you actually read the whole post you would have realised that it was my reasoning as to why the wiping of phones and CC details might not be suspicious. Now, maybe, that doesn't fit with your moralistic view of the McCann parents being as pure as the driven snow, but it is reasonable,plausible and would be consistent with them being innocent of any wrongdoing (except in your eyes).

There is nothing wrong with "swinging" and it doesn't make you a child abuser, except in the eyes of judgemental people.

As to a viable explanation as to how they got rid of the body; well I explained that in earlier posts. You just chose not to read them.

Btw, please feel free to remove your thanks from the post I made earlier on explaining how if G McCann can be established at the Tapas bar then the Smith testimony lets him out.

Choco (neutral)

As this post is directed at me, I'll respond.

Firstly, I did read the whole post and if you believe the 'reasonable, plausible' theory that the friends of the McCanns were BDSM swingers, that's your perogative. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't have an opinion on swingers either way, so to call me judgemental on that score is completely wrong. I just don't know where the whole 'swingers' theory came out of at all.

Secondly, I do not believe the McCanns are "pure as the driven snow". This is a very simplistic view to take on someone that is defending someone else's right to innocence before being assumed guilty. I am no more or less moralistic than anyone here, believe me. I don't know anyone who is pure as the driven snow and I have stated that they were wrong to leave the children unattended, nor are they perfect parents. Then again, who is?

Thirdly, I have read all the posts from people putting forth theories as to how the McCanns might have disposed of the body, I just don't happen to find any of them viable as far as straightforward logic is concerned. This doesn't mean any of those theories may not be true - they may - I just don't happen to see how they could have done this in that particular timeframe, with the eyes of the police, public and media watching 24/7. Just my opinion.

Now, I don't have a clue what post of yours I thanked or where in this huge thread it is, so I won't be going through them all, just to delete it. Besides, if I thanked the post, I obviously thought it had some merit at the time, therefore I see no need to delete it now.

I have no desire to squabble about the same details on a loop and like I said, I feel like a lot of the points being made are simply recycling themselves over and over again and those few defending the McCanns are fighting a losing battle here, so respectfully, I felt it time to leave. I'm not really interested in a conspiracy type discussion as such, so that was the reasoning behind my last post.

I don't expect someone to take digs at me because I may hold different views to them and call me judgemental and moralistic, as I am certainly no more so than anyone else here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion after all, whether they are popular with the majority or not.

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to some of the points you made and hopefully just leave it at that.

DexyDrain

dark crystal wrote: »

Thirdly, I have read all the posts from people putting forth theories as to how the McCanns might have disposed of the body, I just don't happen to find any of them viable as far as straightforward logic is concerned. This doesn't mean any of those theories may not be true - they may - I just don't happen to see how they could have done this in that particular timeframe, with the eyes of the police, public and media watching 24/7. Just my opinion.

Not going to try and challenge you to go through all the old arguments again, but just wanted to say that at no point were Gerry and Kate under the glare of the media and police 24/7. They spent several hours alone together searching in the early morning after the superficial first searches had ended for the night.

There is some indication in the PJ files that they may have has their phones turned off at this point as they did not activate any aerials, but I wouldn't put my life on that claim.

You should perhaps also consider that from the very start their media appearances were highly managed, they arranged times and places with the media so they could be photographed putting up posters or running etc. and were therefore left pretty much to themselves in the first few days before the media machine really kicked in to overdrive. Even afterwards they maintained a lot of privacy as the PJ expressed frustration that they had not tapped the phones or put them under surveillance, checks with the media demonstrated they were definitely not watched constantly outside pre-arranged appearances and photo ops.

AskMyChocolate

mrsbyrne wrote: »

and I'm preaching about forum etiquette....sorry all should have said "neither funny nor relevant IMO" OK now? Blood pressure returning to normal? any answers yet kevin? (i know your still there you know.....)

What traits would you use to classify an appalling cnut? Just for interest.:pac:

AskMyChocolate

dark crystal wrote: »

As this post is directed at me, I'll respond.

Firstly, I did read the whole post and if you believe the 'reasonable, plausible' theory that the friends of the McCanns were BDSM swingers, that's your perogative. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't have an opinion on swingers either way, so to call me judgemental on that score is completely wrong. I just don't know where the whole 'swingers' theory came out of at all.

Secondly, I do not believe the McCanns are "pure as the driven snow". This is a very simplistic view to take on someone that is defending someone else's right to innocence before being assumed guilty. I am no more or less moralistic than anyone here, believe me. I don't know anyone who is pure as the driven snow and I have stated that they were wrong to leave the children unattended, nor are they perfect parents. Then again, who is?

Thirdly, I have read all the posts from people putting forth theories as to how the McCanns might have disposed of the body, I just don't happen to find any of them viable as far as straightforward logic is concerned. This doesn't mean any of those theories may not be true - they may - I just don't happen to see how they could have done this in that particular timeframe, with the eyes of the police, public and media watching 24/7. Just my opinion.

Now, I don't have a clue what post of yours I thanked or where in this huge thread it is, so I won't be going through them all, just to delete it. Besides, if I thanked the post, I obviously thought it had some merit at the time, therefore I see no need to delete it now.

I have no desire to squabble about the same details on a loop and like I said, I feel like a lot of the points being made are simply recycling themselves over and over again and those few defending the McCanns are fighting a losing battle here, so respectfully, I felt it time to leave. I'm not really interested in a conspiracy type discussion as such, so that was the reasoning behind my last post.

I don't expect someone to take digs at me because I may hold different views to them and call me judgemental and moralistic, as I am certainly no more so than anyone else here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion after all, whether they are popular with the majority or not.

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to some of the points you made and hopefully just leave it at that.

Why not?

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

It shows that it is possible the McCann's could have done something similar. Very unlikely albeit, but some posters are open to the suggestion, others don't even want to contemplate it. It isn't a nice thing to imagine, still doesn't mean these type of cases never happen as some appear to be suggesting.

This for me, is not the biggest problem. Yes, once a child is found to be missing, the parents are certainly a good bet for having something to so with it. The difficulty in this case is that every accidental death/cover up scenario seems to assume that the McCanns sat through this infamous tapas session, knowing that their daughter was dead, but not betraying sufficient emotion to arose suspicion. People certainly can, and have, played the deceiving distressed relative. But it is a much greater ask for a bereaved parent to play the part of the carefree holiday maker, even for a couple of hours. This is the major problem with of the accidental death scenarios.

There is also the lesser problem as to why the McCanns and / or their friends would take such an enormous risk of being implicated in a criminal conspiracy to avoid the lesser, and as it turned out, unfounded risk, of being brought to book for their irresponsible parenting. In any case , their grand and risky conspiracy really did nothing to falsely enhance their degree of responsibility.

K-9 wrote: »

The big question for me is, where did they hide Madeline between her "kidnapping" and when they hired the car? 3 weeks later.

A bigger question for me is why they would have had the confidence that they would get an opportunity to move and hide a body at any time after the event. As I recall, they sought to focus the world’s attention on this case from the very early days. Odd behaviour if they knew they would need the world to be looking the other way for a couple of hours some time in the following couple of weeks.

K-9

lugha wrote: »

This for me, is not the biggest problem. Yes, once a child is found to be missing, the parents are certainly a good bet for having something to so with it. The difficulty in this case is that every accidental death/cover up scenario seems to assume that the McCanns sat through this infamous tapas session, knowing that their daughter was dead, but not betraying sufficient emotion to arose suspicion. People certainly can, and have, played the deceiving distressed relative. But it is a much greater ask for a bereaved parent to play the part of the carefree holiday maker, even for a couple of hours. This is the major problem with of the accidental death scenarios.

Maybe it happened after 6.30 or so (timelines inconsistent in the last sighting of Madeline) and they were in the Tapas by 8.30. It's possible.

Incoceivable? Yes, to me and you. Impossible? As shown by other cases, No, definitely not.

The only evidence of having actually checked Madeline properly was Gerry at 9.05/10, nobody else physically saw her. The facts to leave that scenario open, no eye witness statements question those 3 or so hours.

That is unarguable, undebatable.

There is also the lesser problem as to why the McCanns and / or their friends would take such an enormous risk of being implicated in a criminal conspiracy to avoid the lesser, and as it turned out, unfounded risk, of being brought to book for their irresponsible parenting. In any case , their grand and risky conspiracy really did nothing to falsely enhance their degree of responsibility.

It doesn't need a conspiracy of the Tapas 9.

A bigger question for me is why they would have had the confidence that they would get an opportunity to move and hide a body at any time after the event. As I recall, they sought to focus the world’s attention on this case from the very early days. Odd behaviour if they knew they would need the world to be looking the other way for a couple of hours some time in the following couple of weeks.

That's the one for me. Still as another poster pointed out, they didn't have 24 hour attention. It's stretching the imagination at this stage.

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe it happened after 6.30 or so (timelines inconsistent in the last sighting of Madeline) and they were in the Tapas by 8.30. It's possible.

The exact time is not really relevant to my point. Did they know that Madeleine was dead when the met their friends (some interpret Kate’s reaction when she “discovered” Madeline missing which would suggest so)? If so, they would have had to sit through a social evening, disguising their considerable anxiety. It is not so difficult to feign anxiety and this certainly has been done before. But it is a much bigger ask to disguise it.

K-9 wrote: »

Impossible? As shown by other cases, No, definitely not.

I don’t say impossible, I say improbable. But most posters here believe that this (anxiety disguise) probably did happen.

K-9 wrote: »

It doesn't need a conspiracy of the Tapas 9.

I said and / or their friends. And if the friends are not involved then all the supposed suspicion of contradictory and conflicting witness accounts must have a perfectly innocent explanation, again something I think, many posters here find difficult to accept.

K-9

lugha wrote: »

But most posters here believe that this (anxiety disguise) probably did happen.

I really, really don't know why you think that. A couple of posters I'd say, then again a couple of posters just dismiss anything like it whatsoever, with a "sure a parent wouldn't do that" thinking. We know that but there have been cases of it and people can behave like that.

A few posters are open to the possibility of it, this labelling is just a slur on the other view.