General discussion thread No. 15
- Thread starter Jeana (DP)
- Start date
- Status
Zelda
New Member
Will someone tell me something about Murat? Who is and what is the connection to the McCann case?
I'm afraid I'm having a big senior moment on this man.
TIA
I'm afraid I'm having a big senior moment on this man.
TIA
Zelda
New Member
I find it hard to believe that their friends would provide a cover for the McCanns. They are professional people and work in the medical field.
Why would they lie--it would obviously hurt their careers. I just can't see it.
I wouldn't cover for anyone if it was a missing child case. A whole group of people in on the deed and the aftermath? Very hard for me to believe!
Had similar thoughts from the beginning, their friends stories never sounded true to me, the code of silence was a pact made between the McCanns and their friends to give them an alibi, I think the LE also knew this at the start of the investigation, but had to follow all the leads supplied by the McCanns and friends, when they came to a dead end they then started looking elsewhere and now find the McCanns and their friends have indeed lied. This is my opinion of course, and is not fact, just that the things that I have thought from the start keep popping up in the investigation, as possibilities in the disappearance of Madelaine.
Texana
Overreaching
Zelda, check out the earlier threads for the Murat connection. Same for some of the reasoning as to why all/any of the Tapas 9 diners would cover for the McCanns. Most here do not consider them all involved in a cover up. Those that would be, would consider it reasonable given their experience in how doctors are often framed or accused unfairly of mistakes made under pressure of time, with incomplete knowledge of a patient.
Some of the Tapas 9 diners insisted they saw Robert Murat that night. Murat has an alibi, although it's only from his mother. So some one is either lying, or mistaken. Take your pick.
Some of the Tapas 9 diners insisted they saw Robert Murat that night. Murat has an alibi, although it's only from his mother. So some one is either lying, or mistaken. Take your pick.
Yeah, it does seem unlikely she'd mention it if it were her partner. Although ... if she were sufficiently clever, she might reason that her reporting it would have the exact effect it has on us ("It couldn't be her partner she was reporting!") while at the same time covering the possibility that someone else would report seeing him as well and her NOT reporting it would seem suspicious. This might then have become a miscalculation, when it turned out that no one else DID see him and now she's the only one reporting it.
Anyway, I realize this is overly twisted ....
I don't know about in the U.K., but in the U.S. doctors protect their own, and close ranks when one of them gets in trouble.
Just try to get a doctor "dis-barred" (or whatever the medical version would be) simply by reporting malfeasance to his superiors. Doctors are almost never disciplined by their colleagues or superiors. That's why liability lawyers have stepped in.
And these liability cases are usually about killing by mistake. Doctors sometimes kill by mistake. So... imagine a scenario where a loving mom -- a friend, a medical colleague -- ACCIDENTALLY kills her child. She is horror-stricken, grief-stricken, and guilt-stricken.
Her friends see this and say "She's suffered enough. Nothing we can do now will bring Madeleine back. Why ruin this poor woman's professional life and reputation as well? Better to protect her."
I know it's a bit of a stretch, but not completely out of the question ...
I'm with you, Texana. "Amazingly close" is in the eye of the beholder.
100 yards is the length of a football field and with walls, trees, and swimming pools in-between, it doesn't seem close at all to me.
I look after my little grandson (2 yo) every week and my neighbour popped over while I was minding him the other night asking me to come and look at the candles she'd been making. Without a second thought I said "I can't because I have Darius asleep upstairs." I would have said the same thing even before reading about the McCann's leaving their children alone and what could happen...it's a natural, protective instinct surely? Our houses are terraces, joined to one another and she is directly next door but no way would I leave him alone.
I also walked down the road for about 100 yards the other day (while Darius wasn't with me, of course) and I tried to imagine how I would feel if Darius were in the house while I was so far away (I didn't think 100 yards was 'close' at all, knowing little ones were out of earshot and assistance). I felt distinctly uneasy and fretful even imaging that scenario. Nope, couldn't do it.
I also walked down the road for about 100 yards the other day (while Darius wasn't with me, of course) and I tried to imagine how I would feel if Darius were in the house while I was so far away (I didn't think 100 yards was 'close' at all, knowing little ones were out of earshot and assistance). I felt distinctly uneasy and fretful even imaging that scenario. Nope, couldn't do it.
strach304
New Member
Depending on what source or story you believe the account given by the restaurant employees where they say no one left the table except O'Brien and Oldfield fits in a legitimate way. In early reports Jane Tanner was coming to dinner late, Gerry returned after his check, Oldfield and O'Brien left around 9:30 and then Kate at 10.
Gerry's account was verified by a witness and the same one who didn't see Jane I have thought that maybe it's a case where she came along behind them and that's why he didn't see her but she saw them. It was reported that dinner was requested to be held for those arriving late and Jane is the only one I know of that was late.
Another poster had pointed out that Murat looks a lot like his girlfriends ex. Since Jane didn't see the face then that may be a possibility. I also have wondered about other said inconsistencies being due to translation problems with LE in the beginning. I don't know if it's true but I read a report where Gerry was to have said that Port LE only interviewed them once and were scheduled for another in August that Port LE canceled.
Gerry's account was verified by a witness and the same one who didn't see Jane I have thought that maybe it's a case where she came along behind them and that's why he didn't see her but she saw them. It was reported that dinner was requested to be held for those arriving late and Jane is the only one I know of that was late.
Another poster had pointed out that Murat looks a lot like his girlfriends ex. Since Jane didn't see the face then that may be a possibility. I also have wondered about other said inconsistencies being due to translation problems with LE in the beginning. I don't know if it's true but I read a report where Gerry was to have said that Port LE only interviewed them once and were scheduled for another in August that Port LE canceled.
If this has happened, why didnt they tell the truth, just because she is horror and guilt stricken if she indeed killed her daughter accidentally, you need to be responsible for your actions. If they find out the truth and Kate did overdose her daughter she is going to be in so much more trouble than she would be if she had the truth from the start.
Lying and covering up a crime imo is not the right and morally thing to do, whether it was an accident or not, and in the meantime Madelaine is somewhere dead, without a proper burial. No way.
ThoughtFox
Expecting the Unexpected
If someone is in a situation and their first impulse is to lie and cover it up, then that doesn't speak well for the person/people involved. It will come back to haunt them and to bite them.
You can plead that it was due to trauma or shock at first, but if someone keeps lying to support the original lie, then bad things just ripple out from there.
Criminals do that all the time, and it's part of the psychological make-up of sociopaths. Trouble is, you can be as attractive as the McCanns and still have some of that inside you, and you cannot tell a sociopath from the rest of humanity unless you catch them lying over and over.
Feeling traumatized and guilty will only go so far to justify someone's actions. If a pattern of lying emerges, you have to go back and think about the innocent victim, and whether anyone had to right to cover up her death. No one really has the right to do that, upset parent or not.
You can plead that it was due to trauma or shock at first, but if someone keeps lying to support the original lie, then bad things just ripple out from there.
Criminals do that all the time, and it's part of the psychological make-up of sociopaths. Trouble is, you can be as attractive as the McCanns and still have some of that inside you, and you cannot tell a sociopath from the rest of humanity unless you catch them lying over and over.
Feeling traumatized and guilty will only go so far to justify someone's actions. If a pattern of lying emerges, you have to go back and think about the innocent victim, and whether anyone had to right to cover up her death. No one really has the right to do that, upset parent or not.
I wish I could have worded my post as you have here. Well done ThoughtFox.
60 metres as the crow flies I heard, 100 when it's not flying lol
But if they are indeed "covering" then it is not a missing child. It is a dead child and they thought they could get away with it.
april4sky
It is not who is right, but what is right, that is
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,227
- Reaction score
- 9
I agree. I just can't see doctors willingly covering for something like this either. It sounds total nonsence to me.
It wouldn't just ruin their careers it would completely ruin all of their lives.
I don't buy it.
The widely reported Sol article of June 30th specifically quotes David Payne:
"Gerry and Kates friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody elses business, says David Payne, another element with the group."
Sounds like there was something they did not want to discuss with anyone else.
I can see where 7 friends might cooperate with the story, if many of those friends were afraid of being in legal trouble for leaving their own children alone, too. They may not have realized that all of the details would be revealed as they have been. So, if they do know something, I think it would be very easy for at least one of the seven to come forward. Hard to keep all seven on the same page at all times to keep the story straight, which in fact, is about as straight as a dog's hind leg.
Of course it would ruin a career to cover for someone's crime. But it would also ruin a career and have a loss of custody of children (perhaps) if the fact came out that they had also neglected their own children. And for the single woman to have knowledge of child endangerment would be a crime as well. So their choices were: 1) to risk their careers, and 2) to risk their careers AND their family lives. Sounds very plausible to me.
Of course it would ruin a career to cover for someone's crime. But it would also ruin a career and have a loss of custody of children (perhaps) if the fact came out that they had also neglected their own children. And for the single woman to have knowledge of child endangerment would be a crime as well. So their choices were: 1) to risk their careers, and 2) to risk their careers AND their family lives. Sounds very plausible to me.
:waitasec: :doh:
Seems like humor from Oz is like humor from Texas! Corny, yet strangely satisfying...
- Status