The Strange Case of Nora Quoirin

Jim Gamble would want to promote the idea that children can be taken away by strangers through windows, wouldn't he? It could give much needed credibility to an earlier case where there is absolutely none!

Guinea Pig wrote:Jim Gamble would want to promote the idea that children can be taken away by strangers through windows, wouldn't he? It could give much needed credibility to an earlier case where there is absolutely none!

Indeed.

Who IS Jim Gamble and what IS his role?

(My brain in scrambling and splintering in different directions, unfortunately...)

Two excellent contributions, poster.

Yes, why would a well educated middle class couple with a child with special needs (and two other younger children) not check out any place they stayed before booking to see if it met their needs?

While reading the brochure would not have told them that a window of a downstairs room might have a dodgy lock, just reading the brochure/company internet would have told them the security situation, whether there was CCTV etc.

This guy seems to have done some analysis of the case ...
https://crimerocket2.com/2019/08/13/nora-quoirin-tcrs-assessment/

If you go to the top of his page and click on Nora Quoirin there's a drop down menu which shows all of the blogs he's written about it.

Thanks, Antonia.

It was a strange choice of holiday, Imo.  If the couple had been worried about Nora's safety why didn't they book into a more secure resort with cctv and night-time security?  A private villa is generally going to be less secure than a hotel. Why not chose a resort hotel with connecting family rooms?  Or even a suite? All the rooms on one level and the door can be locked and so can the windows if necessary. Reception can be called from the room 24/7 if there are any problems. There is likely to be cctv in the common areas (thinking about the Grace Millaine case here as her killer was captured on cctv in the lift) and the grounds are  also likely to have cctv.

Rather like the McCanns, it would seem they were not concerned about safety until after the alleged 'abduction' at which time security suddenly becomes an issue apparently. Given that it is a FACT that Nora's family chose a villa rather than hotel rooms, there was no cctv in the resort, no nighttime security and the resort was not secure then one has to ask why the parents CHOSE this option? Rather like the McCanns not using the night-time creche for their children and not hiring a babysitter it begs the question of WHY the parents made those choices?

And then Jim Gamble pops up again, apparently quite happy about the parents' explanations. Why? Why would he do this?

canada12 wrote:This guy seems to have done some analysis of the case ...
https://crimerocket2.com/2019/08/13/nora-quoirin-tcrs-assessment/

If you go to the top of his page and click on Nora Quoirin there's a drop down menu which shows all of the blogs he's written about it.

He makes some excellent observations. The (cocktail of?) medications that Nora might have been on being one of them. The other being the massive time-difference between where they were in Malaysia and home. Given the very real likelihood of jet lag, is it not likely that several members of the family might have had trouble sleeping that night, and there could have been all sorts of nocturnal shenanigans as family members struggled with jet-lag. They are unlikely to have all slept solidly until 8am or so the following morning when Nora's father allegedly first discovered her missing.

There is also the observation that the villa was only hired for three days. Normally, if you hire a villa, it's because you want to chill out for some time in your own space. Villa rentals tend to be for longer than just three nights - typically a week or two. There's all the bother of having to get food and get settled in. For a few nights only a hotel room makes more sense as everything is laid on, there are restaurants/bars in the complex and it's less hassle. (This brings to mind the McCann family's decision not to take advantage of the included breakfast during their stay at Mark Warner. A strange choice given that Gerry and indeed Kate too seemed to be quite budget-conscious. Why go to the bother and mess of preparing both breakfast and lunch in your own apartment every day?)

A very peculiar case.

Canada 12, I may be having a senior moment (quite probable in fact) but, when I click on the name at the top of the blog, there's nothing other than the one dated 13th August - which is excellent.

The name Nick Van Der Leek is very familiar - have we discussed him here in connection with the McCann case? I can't find anything if we have.

canada12 wrote:This guy seems to have done some analysis of the case ...
https://crimerocket2.com/2019/08/13/nora-quoirin-tcrs-assessment/

If you go to the top of his page and click on Nora Quoirin there's a drop down menu which shows all of the blogs he's written about it.

Ye Gods! Watch the RTE interview on the blog post about the family requesting a second autopsy. This couple are not on the same page here. Not at all. While Nora's mother speaks with conviction, imo, Nora's father is playing out some kind of macabre 'game', Imo, and right in front of the cameras. (I think we saw Gerry McCann do this a lot. In particular the interview where the age-progressed photo was made public where Gerry breaks into a huge grin, clearly promoted by one (or more) of the journalists in front of him.)

Could the father have a broader grin if he tried throughout this whole media interview? It's positively mind-boggling. Watch how he very noticeably spends a great deal of time with his eyes darting to someone or several people (presumably) off camera to the rear and left of his wife. Right from the start, Nora's father can be seen with the broad grin (smirk?) that does not leave his face for the entire interview. At the 0.00 point he is seen looking ahead. At the 0.01 point his tongue slightly protrudes from his mouth and he looks down to the side. I think he is recalling something about Nora's disappearance at this point but there is something sinister about his facial expressions. As there is throughout the entire interview, imo. He repeatedly glances over to whoever is catching his attention to the left side behind his wife off-camera. It's an obvious glance and is accompanied by some movements around his mouth (smirking/gloating, Imo). From the 0.02 point for quite some time he is engaged with whoever is off-camera. It's so obvious in my opinion. At around the 0.07 it almost looks like he winks. AT the 0.09 his eyes glance backwards and forwards from his wife to the off-camera person/s of interest. There's a darting, furtive aspect to it which is creepy and feels incredibly disrespectful to Nora's mother. As though he was having a private joke with someone. That's what it looks like to me anyway. By the 0.13 point he is looking forward and down but his eyes quickly dart back off-side again several times. It's as if he checks up on what his wife is saying and then has a separate aside with whoever is off-camera. At various points, I think when his wife is saying things that are sensitive/contentious, his hands move slightly particularly his thumb/s which he raises. At the 0.18 point the smirk is particularly unpleasant in the context of what the interview is about. This is followed by exaggerated blinking and then his eyes close when Nora's mother is talking about 'something very complex' happening. This is followed by more glancing back and to the left and then back to his wife (almost as if to check she hasn't noticed or something?)

The smirking carries on and at the 0.30 point he looks back to the side again with a sly rapid eye movement. At the 0.40 mark he appears to be openly gloating. While his body and head remain almost poker-still throughout (to the point where it is a bit weird and stilted) his micro facial expressions and tiny movements of his hands give him away, imo. At the 1.14 point he has what appears to be a huge grin on his face. Towards the latter part of the interview he keeps his eyes facing ahead and often down. The off-camera action appears to have ceased but irrespective of what his wife is saying, that grin/smirk/gloat does not leave his face once. The impression given is that he is enjoying himself and having a bit of a secret joke.

In my opinion only. I would suggest that he shares certain personality traits that have been seen in Gerry McCann and his wife may have adopted the ostrich approach which I think is/was beloved of Kate.

I challenge anyone who has an ounce of empathy to watch that interview and remain impartial about the father.


https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1206991610040463360

Freedom wrote:Canada 12, I may be having a senior moment (quite probable in fact) but, when I click on the name at the top of the blog, there's nothing other than the one dated 13th August - which is excellent.

The name Nick Van Der Leek is very familiar - have we discussed him here in connection with the McCann case? I can't find anything if we have.

Hi Freedom - when you click on the drop down menu there should be a whole list of blog entries (all separate) which follow one after the other. Are you using your phone and perhaps they don't show up? If you're on a computer you might need to make the screen smaller or scroll down somehow...



Thank you - reducing the screen size has done the trick; lots to read at my leisure.

Regarding the lawsuit against the holiday resort, here's my take on it, all just theoretical.
1. If you have any inkling that there may be suspicion and / or an investigation forthcoming and the suspicion/investigation is shining its potential spotlight on you, you can signal that you're not afraid to put the blame on someone else and risk the court case that would necessarily involve a good deal more investigation and revelation of facts, details, etc.
2. Having done that, you settle out of court before it ever goes to trial - because the other party will want to do that and your legal advisors have suggested that will probably be the outcome - well before any investigations and revelations of facts, details, etc., are made public

That's possible. Any holiday resort would not want adverse publicity affecting its business - maybe it has some possible safety issues or other problems which, though not relevant to a particular case, could become public knowledge and it might be thought preferable to settle out of court.

canada12 wrote:Regarding the lawsuit against the holiday resort, here's my take on it, all just theoretical.
1. If you have any inkling that there may be suspicion and / or an investigation forthcoming and the suspicion/investigation is shining its potential spotlight on you, you can signal that you're not afraid to put the blame on someone else and risk the court case that would necessarily involve a good deal more investigation and revelation of facts, details, etc.
2. Having done that, you settle out of court before it ever goes to trial - because the other party will want to do that and your legal advisors have suggested that will probably be the outcome - well before any investigations and revelations of facts, details, etc., are made public

Yes. Deflection is potentially a good tactic to keep the spotlight away from whoever might be responsible. It might well be there has been legal advice on this. I think they have the cheek of the devil to try to imply that their choice of holiday accommodation is in some way responsible for their daughter's death but in some ways, imo, it serves to confirm the type of people they are, at least in my eyes.

Have the parents, and in particular the father who claims he found Nora missing, been ruled out in the investigation? (If Nora had been sleeping in the vicinity of her siblings why wasn't it one of the siblings who found her missing?)

If the parents have not been ruled out, why not? Perhaps Mr Gamble would like to comment? Because from where I'm standing, he is looking like an apologist for parents whose children disappear in suspicious circumstances.

I wonder if Nora's death was partly a result of not taking whatever medications she was on? Starvation seems unlikely within the time-frame? Who on earth could have lead her to her death and more to the point, why?

We don't know if she was on any medication though. I would guess that she wasn't; had she been, that would surely have been given as an additional reason for urgency in finding her - in the same way as for example a diabetic or epileptic who had gone missing.

Now that is interesting and unexpected.

I wonder what, if any, further steps can the parents take.

Freedom wrote:Now that is interesting and unexpected.

I wonder what, if any, further steps can the parents take.

My suspicious mind is saying that the parents knew this was going to happen before they announced the lawsuit against the resort. And it is exactly the outcome they wanted. And of course now the lawsuit against the resort might not go ahead because the legal case is closed without further investigation. Likely outcome: settled out of court.

All in theory.

Attack is the best form of defence, so they say. Look that way not this way. Plus take no responsibility for one's own choices.

Now, where we have seen that before I wonder?

Jim Gamble's role is deeply perplexing, or at least it is to me.

This does not bode well. The Quoirins will be on the Late Late Show tonight. The McCanns were on this show and what a load of lies came from Ryan Tubridy as well as them.

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/509613/this-week-s-rte-late-late-show-guests-revealed.html

I'm surprised that the Quoirins are getting so much coverage in the Irish Republic as Mrs Q is from the North.

Freedom wrote:This does not bode well. The Quoirins will be on the Late Late Show tonight. The McCanns were on this show and what a load of lies came from Ryan Tubridy as well as them.

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/509613/this-week-s-rte-late-late-show-guests-revealed.html

I'm surprised that the Quoirins are getting so much coverage in the Irish Republic as Mrs Q is from the North.

They'll probably be writing a book about their ordeal.

I saw the Late Late Show with the Qoirins,

An interesting piece of info - The parents slept in the downstairs bedroom. They insisted that Nora could not have got down the spiral staircase from the mezzanine where she was sleeping in the darkness and in an an unfamiliar place. I agree that would be difficult but Ryan Tubridy the interviewer who was as useless as he was with the McCann interview did not ask the obvious follow up question:

' how could an intruder having claimed through the window make his way in the darkness up the spiral staircase, pick up Nora (and presumable drug her) and carry her down the spiral staircase in the darkness. Surely she would weigh not less than 7 stone. The intruder would need both arms to carry her so descending that staircase safely would be to say the least problematic?

Will post more later..

That is very interesting! The sleeping arrangements have always been a mystery. Now why would the Quoirins let their disabled daughter sleep upstairs with its difficult access and wouldn't they have heard an intruder come in, even without the rigmarole of getting down the stairs with Nora?

https://www.rte.ie/player/series/the-late-late-show/SI0000001694?epguid=IH000384060

Here's my full report on the parents interview:

It was mentioned on the 6pm and 9pm national Irish news promoting it as the star item on the Late Late Show. The promotion said the parents are 'looking for your assistance.'  What can people do - the child has been found dead?

The parents said she was a wonderfully affectionate child, quirky but also shy, cautious and timid.  She had a rare brain issue involving growth and cognative difficulties. Also difficulty with mobility and co-ordination.  No idea of conceptual thinking - lived in the moment. Bilingual.

Reason for visit. Brother lives in Asia and family had loved a previous holiday with him and wanted to return to the region.  The mother Maebh was in Asia for work so Sebastien, with the three children - younger ones are 9 and 12 - flew to Kuala Lumpur to meet up with her. They then travelled on to the holiday complex which was about one hour south of the city, and in the jungle.

the family arrived around noon, had lunch and then enjoyed the pool. Then a walk during which time Nora tripped but there was no significant injury from that fall. Another swim. A barbecue by their house. Then an early night.

Sebastien wakes at 7am. The parents were sleeping downstairs. Children upstairs. Checks children 8ish. Did not find Nora and knew she 'had been taken.' Starts shouting for the staff.  Says Nora was on the mezzanine and would have had difficulty getting down the spiral staircase to the ground floor.

Maebh said the window (ie on the ground floor) had been open and she had closed it; Nora was physically and mentally incapable of leaving by the window.  The immediate terrain was very difficult and Nora could not have gone more than 2-3 metres.  Sebastien said that given her physical impairment absurd to think she could have got out.  he said the first two days were chaotic. the police were not prepared. They did not see a criminal element. They didn't cordon off the scene immediately so when they did look at the scene forensically the area was contaminated by the family and staff etc so wouldn't have found anything.

They did receive an email saying the person had Nora. this was a hoax.

The family subsequently tried the route Nora would have taken to the place 2-3 km away where she was found. Said very difficult to traverse and she couldn't have done it alone. they think her abductor kept her in the jungle. They don't understand how an ulcer appeared suddenly (first inquest found this).

they want the case re-opened especially to look at the criminal element.

Sebastien - government promised transparency but no word since they left despite reminders. The detailed inquest report is crucial.

Interviewer Ryan Tubridy then asked them about the Lucy Blackman Trust and suggested that viewers might like to donate.

Maebh said the family get lots of nice letters from Ireland

Interview concludes with Tubridy saying people are all behind you.

end of report

Now this interviewer did not ask any relevant questions as he also didn't with the McCanns

Why was Nora with her various difficulties put on the mezzanine with the access being by a spiral staircase? Where was the bathroom in relation to the mezzanine - would she have had to use the spiral stairs to get to the toilet in the night?

Why was she not in the ground floor bedroom?

How did the parents not wake when the intruder came in.

Was the window that was open in the lounge or in the ground floor bedroom.

How could the intruder reach the mezzanine in the darkness and carry Nora down the spiral staircase in the darkness, safely and without disturbing anyone. Presumably her sister was sleeping with her and the intruder did not disturb her.

I also wonder how this interview came about. I would have thought that as the child has been found dead and relatively recently, is it likely that Irish television approached the Quoirins for an interview at this point in time.  Also Maebh Quoirin is not from the Republic of Ireland and has lived in the Uk for years.  I suspect that their representative looked for the interview but if so why?  The interview has made me more suspicious about the family now that the sleeping arrangements have been clarified.

The bit that jumps out at me is that Nora's father "knew she had been taken".

Yes, where have we heard that before? Your child isn't where you expected her to be so you automatically think someone has taken her.

Nonsense!

https://www.thejournal.ie/nora-quoirin-parents-inquest-calls-4970518-Jan2020/

The link is to an online irish paper report of the interview. There are some comments on the article and some people do not entirely buy the story though others feel the malaysian authorities are really protecting their tourist industry

I've listened to the programme now.

Yes, I can't add anything to Antonia's comments. The Quoirins should have been asked how it could have been possible for an abductor to get in and out without them being aware.

I'm thinking that the most likely answer is that Nora wandered off on her own and her parents just don't want to face up to their being partly to blame.