His defense played a clever game and it paid off, he walked.
All long he denied he was gay, right up the the opening minute of the trial.
His
team knew the prosecution would bring up his sexuality as a motive for
having his wife killed, and, given his culture, it was a big no no.
Knowing
this, the defense decided they would pull the rug from under the
prosecutions feet by having him admit , albeit minimising, his sexuality.
Rather
than admit he was homosexual with no interest of any kind in women
(plus it would also show why he cancelled his first engagement) they
minimised it to him being bisexual, (though i would like to know if he
has had sex with a woman or even got to first or second base with one)
At
a stroke, it meant all the evidence which pointed to his sexuality and
thus a whopping big motive for murder was stopped dead.
His previous
male lovers, the texts, the visiting of gay dating. contact sites was
ruled irrelevant and thus not heard nor open to cross examination.
It
meant that Anni who it is clear had learned of his sexual orientation
would tell not only her family but his family as well and the resultant
shame etc that would come from him being outed.
It also meant she would likely sue him for divorce ( although how that would work out since they weren't legally married AFAIK).
It
also meant that should she walk away, both he and his family would be
liable to repay a huge chunk of money to her family for the cost of the
wedding.
Him being outed would bring cultural shame on his family and also would result in a large payout to Anni and her family.
By
admitting to being bisexual, he pretty much ended a huge chunk of the
prosecutions case, he and his team stopped a huge part of the motive
being introduced and cross examined.
Given this, it was not unexpected the case would fail since legally there was no motive.
His motives were shame to himself and his family for being gay and he had to stop that happening.
Being gay was his dirty little secret.
There
was the money side of things - he could face a huge payout for the cost
of the wedding and also compensation to Anni ( also likely a payoff to
keep her quiet about his sexual preferences)
Sex and money are pretty big motives.
Take them away and there were only the words of those who did the deed.
He
knew he was safe when his defense team said he would take the stand,
promised he would take the stand to explain everything away.
They knew without the sex and money motives the case would be tossed.
The
CCTV was incriminating in that. given the guy was the driver in the taxi
that his wife was driven off in and subsequently murdered, why would
he contact the guy and pay him money owed?
Normal and expected behavior would be you wouldn't pay money owed, you would be demanding the police arrest the guy.
Even his initial statements as revealed by independent witnesses showed he was deceptive.
His suit was immaculate, not dirty or ruffled or messy as if dragged out a car and thrown into the dust.
His inital words to a witness were polite and showed no haste or anger or fear.
(‘He
said to me, “Excuse me, is there a nearby police station where I can
report a hijack because my wife and I were hijacked”, ’ said Mr
Matokazi.)
Shrien dewani arranged for his wife to be murdered so he could continue with his seedy lifestyle.
I just hope her family can file a civil suit against him.
Since SA has double jeopardy, he could now stand and declare his guilt, his involvement and he could not be retried.
If he does, he would wait until any civil suit had been dealt with.
The Thoughts And Ponderings Of A Hobnob
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Maddie's 4th Birthday As Per The Bewk
"The Mark Warner staff had brought over stacks of food for us.
The men organized a barbecue and there was wine and beer.
We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids.
I couldn’t eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda.
Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk, and although our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances.
There was no cake.
Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn’t manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up.
The physical loss was more intense than ever. I ached for Madeleine."
Interesting and telling.
They found time to organise a bbq with food and beer, in other words a party, even though there was no cake, yet they couldn't find time to actually go out and physically search, neither the mccanns themselves, or their family and friends.We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids.
Mostly is a qualifier, , what were they talking about when not being silent?
How did they concentrate on the kids?
What kids were present?
Who else was present?
I couldn’t eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda.
Couldn't not didn't? Note the qualifier completely in relation to alcohol and her agenda
This tells us alcohol was not off the agenda of others, again telling us this was a party.
She doesn't tell us she didn't drink alcohol, only that it was completely off her agenda
Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk,
She doesn't tell us she and gerry were completely shut down, only that their tapas friend fiona recalls they were completely shut down.
Recalls not recalled.
She speaks in the present tense not past tense which can be indicative of story telling not speaking from experiential memory
Notice also the dropped pronoun in relation to barely able to talk.
She doesn't take ownership of being barely able to talk either as first person singular I or in this case first person plural WE
She doesn't even say fiona told us or said, she tells us what her friend remembers.
Note also she says gerry and i not the expected WE were completely shut down.
They were barely able to talk, not the qualifier BARELY.
This tells us they were able to talk and did so.
What then was discussed at this party?Our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances.
In other words they were having a party and chatted ate and drank and generally had fun.
Given the circumstances and them feeling awkward, why then were they not out physically searching like the Police, locals, expats and tourists were doing?
That would have stopped the awkwardness.
There was no cake.
Anything in the negative is sensitive.I
Is this a complaint that the Mark Warner staff had brought over stacks of food but forgotten the cake?
Is this her trying to persuade the reader that it couldn't have been a party on what would have been Maddie's 4th birthday because there was no cake?
Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn’t manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up. What else did he say since he managed a bit more than "I can't even say happy birthday to my daughter"
I would take it as this wasn't them coming out to help search for Maddie or to help in other ways such as handing out flyers etc, instead they all piled in for a free all inclusive holiday.
Given that if a friend of yours had a child genuinely go missing in a foreign country, would you do all you could to help even to going out and physically searching along with the parents and everyone else, or, would you pack your swimming cossie and suncream and go over and hang around the pool eating and drinking whilst the police and locals and ex pats searched till they dropped to find your friends missing child?
If your friend had a child allegedly abducted in a foreign country and you went over to help in any way you could, what would you be thinking if you were out at the crack of dawn along with police and locals etc searching till you dropped and you saw the parents of said missing child, lounging around by the pool eating and drinking, playing tennis and jogging as well as traveling the world at others expense to countries where Maddie is not likely to be found and meeting celebs and world leaders?
You would be thinking WTF?
Why aren't they out searching like the rest of us to find their missing child?
What would you think if you learned they refused to co-operate with the police?
What would you think if they refused to do a police reconstruction?
What would you think if you learned they threatened to sue anyone who disagreed with their version?
Would you be asking them questions regarding their behavior?
You would be looking for the expected in such a case, you would expect them to do what you yourself would do in the same situation ( even allowing for the alleged neglect which never happened)
If you bought the alleged neglect story, wouldn't you be asking them what the hell they were thinking leaving 3 toddlers home alone every night, especially given they are doctors and know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second even with the parents right next to them?
In missing persons cases, especially where a child is involved, you look for the expected, what you yourself would do in the same situation.
What you would say and do, cooperating with LE and taking polys and whatever else was needed.
You would call out to the missing person to reassure them, to let them know you are searching for them and will find them, telling them to try and get help/escape or whatever they can.
This is normal.
This is what is called the expected.
This is what happens in every case from innocent parents and family members.
When you see the unexpected, the non cooperation, the refusal to do reconstructions or take polys or do whatever else is needed, then you have a cause for concern.
You only see this behavior when the parents or family members of the missing person have something to hide such as guilt or guilty knowledge.
Although this is unexpected behavior, it is expected behavior from guilty parties, they act in a specific manner, appearing to cooperate whilst doing the opposite.
Such as hiring lawyers, refusing polygraphs or answering questions.
Refusing to do reconstructions or setting so many demands it cannot be done as it should be.
There is no calling out to the missing person, instead there is often subtle demeaning of the victim, it is their own fault the event happened.
Everything is about how they feel rather than what the victim feels.
The mccanns show every red flag possible regarding their involvement with the homicide, concealing of a corpse and filing a false police report.
They themselves have told the world Maddie is dead and they are involved.
The tapas 7 have told us the same and have revealed their guilty knowledge.
Do they realise they could be charged as accessories after the fact?
They can face charges of obstruction and perverting the course of justice?
Do they understand that if push comes to shove, the mccanns will throw them all under the bus in an effort to cover their own asses?
I would suggest they get their own lawyers, one per person and then reveal the truth of what they did and what they know.
The men organized a barbecue and there was wine and beer.
We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids.
I couldn’t eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda.
Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk, and although our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances.
There was no cake.
Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn’t manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up.
The physical loss was more intense than ever. I ached for Madeleine."
Interesting and telling.
They found time to organise a bbq with food and beer, in other words a party, even though there was no cake, yet they couldn't find time to actually go out and physically search, neither the mccanns themselves, or their family and friends.We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids.
Mostly is a qualifier, , what were they talking about when not being silent?
How did they concentrate on the kids?
What kids were present?
Who else was present?
I couldn’t eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda.
Couldn't not didn't? Note the qualifier completely in relation to alcohol and her agenda
This tells us alcohol was not off the agenda of others, again telling us this was a party.
She doesn't tell us she didn't drink alcohol, only that it was completely off her agenda
Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk,
She doesn't tell us she and gerry were completely shut down, only that their tapas friend fiona recalls they were completely shut down.
Recalls not recalled.
She speaks in the present tense not past tense which can be indicative of story telling not speaking from experiential memory
Notice also the dropped pronoun in relation to barely able to talk.
She doesn't take ownership of being barely able to talk either as first person singular I or in this case first person plural WE
She doesn't even say fiona told us or said, she tells us what her friend remembers.
Note also she says gerry and i not the expected WE were completely shut down.
They were barely able to talk, not the qualifier BARELY.
This tells us they were able to talk and did so.
What then was discussed at this party?Our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances.
In other words they were having a party and chatted ate and drank and generally had fun.
Given the circumstances and them feeling awkward, why then were they not out physically searching like the Police, locals, expats and tourists were doing?
That would have stopped the awkwardness.
There was no cake.
Anything in the negative is sensitive.I
Is this a complaint that the Mark Warner staff had brought over stacks of food but forgotten the cake?
Is this her trying to persuade the reader that it couldn't have been a party on what would have been Maddie's 4th birthday because there was no cake?
Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn’t manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up. What else did he say since he managed a bit more than "I can't even say happy birthday to my daughter"
I would take it as this wasn't them coming out to help search for Maddie or to help in other ways such as handing out flyers etc, instead they all piled in for a free all inclusive holiday.
Given that if a friend of yours had a child genuinely go missing in a foreign country, would you do all you could to help even to going out and physically searching along with the parents and everyone else, or, would you pack your swimming cossie and suncream and go over and hang around the pool eating and drinking whilst the police and locals and ex pats searched till they dropped to find your friends missing child?
If your friend had a child allegedly abducted in a foreign country and you went over to help in any way you could, what would you be thinking if you were out at the crack of dawn along with police and locals etc searching till you dropped and you saw the parents of said missing child, lounging around by the pool eating and drinking, playing tennis and jogging as well as traveling the world at others expense to countries where Maddie is not likely to be found and meeting celebs and world leaders?
You would be thinking WTF?
Why aren't they out searching like the rest of us to find their missing child?
What would you think if you learned they refused to co-operate with the police?
What would you think if they refused to do a police reconstruction?
What would you think if you learned they threatened to sue anyone who disagreed with their version?
Would you be asking them questions regarding their behavior?
You would be looking for the expected in such a case, you would expect them to do what you yourself would do in the same situation ( even allowing for the alleged neglect which never happened)
If you bought the alleged neglect story, wouldn't you be asking them what the hell they were thinking leaving 3 toddlers home alone every night, especially given they are doctors and know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second even with the parents right next to them?
In missing persons cases, especially where a child is involved, you look for the expected, what you yourself would do in the same situation.
What you would say and do, cooperating with LE and taking polys and whatever else was needed.
You would call out to the missing person to reassure them, to let them know you are searching for them and will find them, telling them to try and get help/escape or whatever they can.
This is normal.
This is what is called the expected.
This is what happens in every case from innocent parents and family members.
When you see the unexpected, the non cooperation, the refusal to do reconstructions or take polys or do whatever else is needed, then you have a cause for concern.
You only see this behavior when the parents or family members of the missing person have something to hide such as guilt or guilty knowledge.
Although this is unexpected behavior, it is expected behavior from guilty parties, they act in a specific manner, appearing to cooperate whilst doing the opposite.
Such as hiring lawyers, refusing polygraphs or answering questions.
Refusing to do reconstructions or setting so many demands it cannot be done as it should be.
There is no calling out to the missing person, instead there is often subtle demeaning of the victim, it is their own fault the event happened.
Everything is about how they feel rather than what the victim feels.
The mccanns show every red flag possible regarding their involvement with the homicide, concealing of a corpse and filing a false police report.
They themselves have told the world Maddie is dead and they are involved.
The tapas 7 have told us the same and have revealed their guilty knowledge.
Do they realise they could be charged as accessories after the fact?
They can face charges of obstruction and perverting the course of justice?
Do they understand that if push comes to shove, the mccanns will throw them all under the bus in an effort to cover their own asses?
I would suggest they get their own lawyers, one per person and then reveal the truth of what they did and what they know.
Matt Oldfield's Alleged Last Check
Reply "No, it was just, you could just see the shape and bits of breathing".
No, would be a strong answer but he then goes on to answer outside the boundaries of the question, making it sensitive.
He was asked if he remembered which way the children were facing.
He then tells us what YOU could see ( not what he actually saw)
Note the pronoun he uses.
He doesn't tell us what he could see, he tells us what you (we) could see.
He distances himself from what he could see ( as an aside kate uses the distancing pronoun you a lot rather than the expected I)
Just is used to minimise downwards.
Next he tells us the shape (singular) not the shapes (plural) which you would expect if he was referring to the twins.
Notice the article he uses.
He talks about THE SHAPE and not THEIR SHAPES.
He is talking about something he saw in the singular
He then talks about BITS OF BREATHING
This is unexpected and concerning.
Bits of breathing would imply perhaps breathing problems, struggling to breathe or perhaps the last few breathes of a dying child.
The expected would be i saw them breathing, or i saw the twins breathing since he was allegedly doing the check on the mccanns children, except this isn't what he is actually telling us.
Instead he tells us he saw a shape with bits of breathing.
This man is a doctor, surely even he must have realised something was wrong if he was presented with a patient who was a shape (under a blanket) and presenting with bits of breathing?
4078 "Okay".
Reply "I mean, I, for some reason I imagine that the children's heads were towards the, towards the window, but I don't know whether that's just because I assume that's the way I would put them down
Note here the pronoun he uses, he has changed from YOU to I,taking ownership of the statement.
Note he doesn't tell us what he saw, only what he assumed he saw.
Note the qualifiers he uses (qualifiers are words that when removed, do not change the meaning of the sentence.
Here we have REASON, IMAGINE and ASSUME.
Why does he feel the need to tell us that for some reason he imagined their heads were towards the window?
Surely if he checked as claimed then the would have been able to see if the blankets were at the top or the bottom of the cots covering presumably their feet and bodies.
If he wasn't sure of the bedding was messed, then why not rearrange the bedding to cover the children appropriately?
As written in his statement we have 3 qualifiers and the pronoun I repeated four times, thrice out of the first 7 words making it sensitive.
We also have TOWARDS THE repeated twice again making it sensitive.
The alleged check of the children immediately prior to kate and her 'finding Maddie missing' is sensitive to oldfield.
Did the check even take place?
If it did was it in apartment 5a?
If it wasn't 5a which apartment was it (remember he described a different apartment)
The Crying Incident And Leaked Marbles
Dermot Murnaghan interview Sky News
Transcript by Nigel Moore
Interview broadcast: 01 May 2008
Gerry McCann: Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night. During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired. Of course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasised that to the police.
More leaked marbles
This was gerry's response to being asked about the alleged crying incident.
He asks was it 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired?"
Think about it for a moment.
Do you see it?
If kate and gerry were bathing them, the question would not have arisen as they would already be there.
If kate and gerry were in the apartment and didn't respond to the crying at bath time who was bathing them?
If they were in the apartment they would have heard the crying and parental instinct should have made them check on the children to see why they were crying and reassure them.
Since they never heard the crying this raises 2 questions.
If the children were in 5a as claimed, where were kate and gerry?
If kate and gerry were in 5a, where were the children?
The same applies for the putting to bed.
Kate has told us this fanciful story about the bedtime routine the night Maddie vanished, sounds good except it didn't happen.
If Maddie was crying when they were being put to bed kate would know as she was present and the where were you when we cried statement would not have happened.
So, if the children were being put to bed in 5a so were all the other children as gerry already told us all the children were together, in which case again where was kate and gerry and who was putting them to bed?
If they were all sleeping in another apartment (the twins being moved back to the apartment and no blankets) whose apartment and who was putting them to bed (david payne and his liking to bathe little children not his own perhaps?)
Both kate and gerry have told us the children were not in 5a and that someone other than them was bathing and putting the children to bed.
Since they were all in one place not 5a, since there was an adult present, there was never an abduction from 5a.
There couldn't have been for there were no children there and where the children were, there was an adult present.
What should have been done was the bedding is all the apartments taken as evidence and tested for DNA.
I bet all the children would have shown up in at least one apartment.
The PJ based their initial few hours investigation on an abduction as claimed by the parents.
I bet there was a lot of laundry being done those first few days
Costa Condordia - Passing The Buck Using Spin Doctoring As Perfected By The mccanns
As you will know a ship sank whilst doing a salute as it sailed past an island near Italy.
The captain is currently being tried for manslaughter and various other offenses
This got me to thinking, as is my wont
The captain of the cruise line is certainly to blame but he is probably not the only culprit.
Hence the need to reconstruct all that evening’s communications and in particular the orders given by his superiors at the Costa company.
Investigators want to know what advice Captain Schettino received when he spoke to Roberto Ferrarini, the man in charge of Costa’s crisis unit and fleet management.
-
Me being me i couldn't help having a slight dig at the captain, the spin and buck passing that we have seen and will continue to see.
It seems to have worked so far for the mccanns, will this also work for other cases?
I am waiting for the claim that it was some strange swarthy gypsy looking/mediterranean man who snuck onto the bridge being unseen by any member of staff (they were all helping and mingling with the passengers) who, then after abducting the ship dumped her on a reef when a crew member having returned from taking a pee (after checking the bridge for swarthy looking abductors before leaving) caused him to flee out an open porthole with jemmied shutters with the door smashed open.
The crew member who spotted said abductor thus informed the captain who decided that he had better order his dinner and continue to chat with a lady who would later claim she was not his girlfriend or anything to do with the ship even though she didn't show on the passenger list.
She however noticed a vague figure of a man leaping from said porthole but thought maybe it was the first officer in a playful mood after a few glasses of vino.
The captain subsequently claimed that if the ship hit the reef and sank how was it his fault?
He has been advised he was a responsible captain and many other captains have done the same thing.
As for him sitting in a lifeboat whilst other passengers remained on board well, he accidentally fell in along with 2 other crew members when he was gallantly lending the lifejacket he wasn't wearing to a passenger who wasn't there.
Once aboard the lifeboat he suddenly realised that he could not get back aboard the ship as that would mean climbing a ladder and thus ruining his uniform bringing shame to the company ( no mention was made of the state of his underoos)
Faced with such a scenario he decided he would do the right thing and stay with the passengers and crew members in the lifeboat.
It would, he said, make up for the fact they would miss dining at the captains table, sailing in the captain's personal lifeboat would be far more exciting and newsworthy.
On reaching land he was contacted by some snotty nosed official who asked where he was and demanded that he then return to the ship.
Did he not understand how hard it would be to relaunch his lifeboat and get back to the ship and then attempt to re-board it whilst it was sinking.
It was dangerous and under health and safety rules he was obliged to wait until rescue services declared it safe to enter, also, his mom would get very upset if her precious li'l sailor man got hurt whilst boarding a sinking ship.
When pressed for information he admitted he may have messed up but he knows a good washing powder that will get his underoos sparkling white again as recommended by the now unemployed laundry crew.
Kate and gerry mccann have sent a letter of sympathy to the now ex captain reassuring him they would have done the same thing in that situation and they are willing to be character witnesses on his behalf at his trial.
They managed to lose a child, he managed to lose a ship, everyone can see the similarities and thus clear him of involvement.
They will start a fund up on his behalf with pictures of Madeleine superimposed on the hull of the ship asking if anyone has seen this abductor (they will squeeze in all the e fits of the suspects they can make up)
They will claim the captain was lucky because the abductor had to abandon his attempt to abduct the ship.
First Madeleine, then a ship who or what will he target next?
The Statue of Liberty, Ularu, Christ the Redeemer, the Washington Monument and the Vatican have all been put on high alert for swarthy looking strangers eyeing them up and lurking with intent possibly taking photographs and notes and acting in a suspicious type manner.
The Eiffel tower hasn't been warned (since it's French and no one likes the French) and Interpol have been told to keep an eye open but not to act if the abductor steals away France.(apparently it's abduct 2 get one free)
I will now go and sit in the corner for 5 mins to reflect on my behavior
The captain is currently being tried for manslaughter and various other offenses
This got me to thinking, as is my wont
The captain of the cruise line is certainly to blame but he is probably not the only culprit.
Hence the need to reconstruct all that evening’s communications and in particular the orders given by his superiors at the Costa company.
Investigators want to know what advice Captain Schettino received when he spoke to Roberto Ferrarini, the man in charge of Costa’s crisis unit and fleet management.
-
Me being me i couldn't help having a slight dig at the captain, the spin and buck passing that we have seen and will continue to see.
It seems to have worked so far for the mccanns, will this also work for other cases?
I am waiting for the claim that it was some strange swarthy gypsy looking/mediterranean man who snuck onto the bridge being unseen by any member of staff (they were all helping and mingling with the passengers) who, then after abducting the ship dumped her on a reef when a crew member having returned from taking a pee (after checking the bridge for swarthy looking abductors before leaving) caused him to flee out an open porthole with jemmied shutters with the door smashed open.
The crew member who spotted said abductor thus informed the captain who decided that he had better order his dinner and continue to chat with a lady who would later claim she was not his girlfriend or anything to do with the ship even though she didn't show on the passenger list.
She however noticed a vague figure of a man leaping from said porthole but thought maybe it was the first officer in a playful mood after a few glasses of vino.
The captain subsequently claimed that if the ship hit the reef and sank how was it his fault?
He has been advised he was a responsible captain and many other captains have done the same thing.
As for him sitting in a lifeboat whilst other passengers remained on board well, he accidentally fell in along with 2 other crew members when he was gallantly lending the lifejacket he wasn't wearing to a passenger who wasn't there.
Once aboard the lifeboat he suddenly realised that he could not get back aboard the ship as that would mean climbing a ladder and thus ruining his uniform bringing shame to the company ( no mention was made of the state of his underoos)
Faced with such a scenario he decided he would do the right thing and stay with the passengers and crew members in the lifeboat.
It would, he said, make up for the fact they would miss dining at the captains table, sailing in the captain's personal lifeboat would be far more exciting and newsworthy.
On reaching land he was contacted by some snotty nosed official who asked where he was and demanded that he then return to the ship.
Did he not understand how hard it would be to relaunch his lifeboat and get back to the ship and then attempt to re-board it whilst it was sinking.
It was dangerous and under health and safety rules he was obliged to wait until rescue services declared it safe to enter, also, his mom would get very upset if her precious li'l sailor man got hurt whilst boarding a sinking ship.
When pressed for information he admitted he may have messed up but he knows a good washing powder that will get his underoos sparkling white again as recommended by the now unemployed laundry crew.
Kate and gerry mccann have sent a letter of sympathy to the now ex captain reassuring him they would have done the same thing in that situation and they are willing to be character witnesses on his behalf at his trial.
They managed to lose a child, he managed to lose a ship, everyone can see the similarities and thus clear him of involvement.
They will start a fund up on his behalf with pictures of Madeleine superimposed on the hull of the ship asking if anyone has seen this abductor (they will squeeze in all the e fits of the suspects they can make up)
They will claim the captain was lucky because the abductor had to abandon his attempt to abduct the ship.
First Madeleine, then a ship who or what will he target next?
The Statue of Liberty, Ularu, Christ the Redeemer, the Washington Monument and the Vatican have all been put on high alert for swarthy looking strangers eyeing them up and lurking with intent possibly taking photographs and notes and acting in a suspicious type manner.
The Eiffel tower hasn't been warned (since it's French and no one likes the French) and Interpol have been told to keep an eye open but not to act if the abductor steals away France.(apparently it's abduct 2 get one free)
I will now go and sit in the corner for 5 mins to reflect on my behavior
Monday, January 5, 2015
The Dead Defense Sketch As Mangled By Me
I came across this original post by me on another blog going back some time ago.
I feel it deserves an airing since the mccanns have gone rather quiet over the festive period, which given their avarice is entirely unexpected.
Therefore in the spirit of the New Year i present to you, the Dead Defense Sketch courtesy of Monty Python and as mangled by me.
Dead Defense Sketch Mangled by Hobnob
( with thanks to Monty Python)
The cast: The Defendants kate and gerry mccann Their Spin Doctor clarence mitchell
-----------------------------------
The sketch: clarence enters the mccanns book signing.
clarence: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (the mccanns do not respond.)
clarence: 'Ello, Mister?
kate: What do you mean "mister"?
clarence: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
gerry: We're launchin' a book piss off.
clarence: Never mind that, my lass. I wish to complain about this defense what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
kate: Oh yes, the, uh, the Abductor Defense...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
clarence: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lass. it's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
gerry: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
clarence: Look, matey, I know a dead defense when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
gerry: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable defense, the Abductor did it, isn't it, aye? Beautiful excuse!
clarence: The Abductor don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
kate: No no no no, no, no! It's resting!
clarence: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (shouting at the abductor defense) 'Ello, Abductor! I've got a lovely fresh victim for you if you show up...
(gerry hits the desk)
kate: There, it moved!
clarence: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the desk!
gerry: I never!!
clarence: Yes, you did!
gerry: I never, never did anything...
clarence: (yelling and hitting the abductor defense repeatedly) 'ELLO ABDUCTOR!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! (Takes abductor defense out of its box and thumps its cover on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
clarence: Now that's what I call a dead abductor defense.
gerry: No, no.....No,It's stunned!
clarence: STUNNED?!?
kate: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was wakin' up! abductor defenses stun easily, major.
clarence: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That abductor defense is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged interview.
kate: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for the tapas.
clarence: PININ' for the TAPAS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got it home?
gerry: The Abductor Defense prefers kippin' on it's back! Remarkable defense, isn't it, squire? Lovely public persuader!
clarence: Look, I took the liberty of examining that defense when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its shelf in the first place was that it had been NAILED there. (pause)
gerry: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that defense down, it would have nuzzled up to those shutters, bent 'em apart without leaving any evidence, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
kate: No no! It's pining!
clarence:It's not pinin' It's passed on! This abductor defense is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the shelf it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the tapas! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-ABDUCTOR DEFENSE!! (pause)
kate: Well, I'd better replace it, then.(she takes a quick peek inside her new book) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the index, and uh, we're right out of the Abductor did it defense.
clarence: I see. I see, I get the picture.
gerry: I got a childless mom. (pause)
clarence: Pray, will there be sightings?
gerry: N-n-n-not really.
clarence: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
kate: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at gerry's crotch)
clarence: Well? (pause)
gerry: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
clarence: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure
I feel it deserves an airing since the mccanns have gone rather quiet over the festive period, which given their avarice is entirely unexpected.
Therefore in the spirit of the New Year i present to you, the Dead Defense Sketch courtesy of Monty Python and as mangled by me.
Dead Defense Sketch Mangled by Hobnob
( with thanks to Monty Python)
The cast: The Defendants kate and gerry mccann Their Spin Doctor clarence mitchell
-----------------------------------
The sketch: clarence enters the mccanns book signing.
clarence: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (the mccanns do not respond.)
clarence: 'Ello, Mister?
kate: What do you mean "mister"?
clarence: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
gerry: We're launchin' a book piss off.
clarence: Never mind that, my lass. I wish to complain about this defense what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
kate: Oh yes, the, uh, the Abductor Defense...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
clarence: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lass. it's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
gerry: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
clarence: Look, matey, I know a dead defense when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
gerry: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable defense, the Abductor did it, isn't it, aye? Beautiful excuse!
clarence: The Abductor don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
kate: No no no no, no, no! It's resting!
clarence: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (shouting at the abductor defense) 'Ello, Abductor! I've got a lovely fresh victim for you if you show up...
(gerry hits the desk)
kate: There, it moved!
clarence: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the desk!
gerry: I never!!
clarence: Yes, you did!
gerry: I never, never did anything...
clarence: (yelling and hitting the abductor defense repeatedly) 'ELLO ABDUCTOR!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! (Takes abductor defense out of its box and thumps its cover on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
clarence: Now that's what I call a dead abductor defense.
gerry: No, no.....No,It's stunned!
clarence: STUNNED?!?
kate: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was wakin' up! abductor defenses stun easily, major.
clarence: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That abductor defense is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged interview.
kate: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for the tapas.
clarence: PININ' for the TAPAS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got it home?
gerry: The Abductor Defense prefers kippin' on it's back! Remarkable defense, isn't it, squire? Lovely public persuader!
clarence: Look, I took the liberty of examining that defense when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its shelf in the first place was that it had been NAILED there. (pause)
gerry: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that defense down, it would have nuzzled up to those shutters, bent 'em apart without leaving any evidence, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
kate: No no! It's pining!
clarence:It's not pinin' It's passed on! This abductor defense is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the shelf it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the tapas! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-ABDUCTOR DEFENSE!! (pause)
kate: Well, I'd better replace it, then.(she takes a quick peek inside her new book) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the index, and uh, we're right out of the Abductor did it defense.
clarence: I see. I see, I get the picture.
gerry: I got a childless mom. (pause)
clarence: Pray, will there be sightings?
gerry: N-n-n-not really.
clarence: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
kate: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at gerry's crotch)
clarence: Well? (pause)
gerry: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
clarence: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)