Possible Action Against The Times
Page 12 of 16 • Share
Page 12 of 16 • 1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
I'm with you Cristobell.
I accept that there are some things that seem a bit odd about the Smith statements but, in my view, that's an enormous jump to saying that they all, including children, deliberately lied.
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that Martin Smith and Robert Murat were anything more than casual acquaintances so why he would put his whole family at such risk to defend him, I don't know.
We'll be discussing this issue until the cows come home, I think!
I accept that there are some things that seem a bit odd about the Smith statements but, in my view, that's an enormous jump to saying that they all, including children, deliberately lied.
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that Martin Smith and Robert Murat were anything more than casual acquaintances so why he would put his whole family at such risk to defend him, I don't know.
We'll be discussing this issue until the cows come home, I think!
Guest- Guest
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
I've just read on another thread here that an Irish officer wrote to the pj to tell them Martin refused to participate in an efit drawing with Brian Kennedy and refused to tell him what happened! BK referred to the mcs friend!
IMO
What I mean is did Martin know BK was friends of the mcs, so he didn't participate?
IMO
What I mean is did Martin know BK was friends of the mcs, so he didn't participate?
____________________
Parents=protection
Justformaddie- Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
The E-fits have always baffled me.
Why did they plaster two pictures of what are clearly white Englishmen all over Crimewatch then go chasing Portuguese burglars, drug dealers and youngsters?
What was the purpose? There appears to be no purpose as they have been following another line of investigation.
Why did they plaster two pictures of what are clearly white Englishmen all over Crimewatch then go chasing Portuguese burglars, drug dealers and youngsters?
What was the purpose? There appears to be no purpose as they have been following another line of investigation.
Pershing36- Posts : 674
Activity : 721
Likes received : 13
Join date : 2011-12-03
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Justformaddie wrote:Been thinking about this, if Martin fabricated smithman, to help Murat which is horrible on its own, but not impossible, they must at least, be on speaking terms to communicate. Like, hi mate thanks. Anyway, if Murat was called to help the mcs, then Murat probably knew or knew off the mcs. I'm confused too but, why then in sept07 would Martin tell police he's 60 to 80% sure it was gm? If Martin made it up, could he be that heartless to say he's that percent sure it was the father of the child? Would Murat not have let him know it was a favour for a friend of a friend, describe tannerman but nothing else? I understand Martin helping out Murat if he did, but I don't understand martins statement about gm. I take this to mean Martin did see a smithman.ShuBob wrote:worriedmum wrote:Tony said ''So we know that Murat lied.
What is so difficult about believing that his friend Martin Smith also lied?''
Murat may or may not have lied, but Martin Smith is a different person.
I know a lot of people but I would not call them my' friend ' just because I know them.
I agree with Cristobell. I believe the Smith family sighting and the truthfulness of the Smith family.
I'm with you two.
Until new facts emerge, it's pointless trying to convince me otherwise.
No facts all IMO
____________________
Parents=protection
Justformaddie- Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
To make it look as though the shed load of your tax 'dollars' was being spent on something ever-so productive, perhaps? When there is nothing to find, I imagine you've got to grasp at any straw you can, as unlikely as it may seem. Then you've got to hype it with sensationalist movie-style trailer language, 'amazing, new, never-before-seen evidence'. All I am seeing is money wasted on police jollies to the Algarve and a string of unlikely patsies. Why not just blame it on Jimmy Savile, and have done with this farce? Just in my opinion. Allegedly. Etc.Varriott wrote:The real questions are why did Andy Redwood make them public, and why did he do so in particular last October.
Brian Griffin- Posts : 577
Activity : 582
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Good point. The damage to Gerry from this statement being released must have been horrendous. No wonder they suppressed the efits. Of course DCI Redwood didn't mention that bit in the Crimewatch program, but Gerry's similarity to the efits was unmistakeable. It certainly explains Kate's shocked 'just seen a ghost' expression in that iconic photograph.Justformaddie wrote:Been thinking about this, if Martin fabricated smithman, to help Murat which is horrible on its own, but not impossible, they must at least, be on speaking terms to communicate. Like, hi mate thanks. Anyway, if Murat was called to help the mcs, then Murat probably knew or knew off the mcs. I'm confused too but, why then in sept07 would Martin tell police he's 60 to 80% sure it was gm? If Martin made it up, could he be that heartless to say he's that percent sure it was the father of the child? Would Murat not have let him know it was a favour for a friend of a friend, describe tannerman but nothing else? I understand Martin helping out Murat if he did, but I don't understand martins statement about gm.ShuBob wrote:worriedmum wrote:Tony said ''So we know that Murat lied.
What is so difficult about believing that his friend Martin Smith also lied?''
Murat may or may not have lied, but Martin Smith is a different person.
I know a lot of people but I would not call them my' friend ' just because I know them.
I agree with Cristobell. I believe the Smith family sighting and the truthfulness of the Smith family.
I'm with you two.
Until new facts emerge, it's pointless trying to convince me otherwise.
No facts all IMO
Cristobell- Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Agreed Cristobel, IMO there was a smithman and though Martin had met Murat, I can't see him involved. Friends can be friends of friends, PDL is a smallish town, people know people, but this crime is way too big, even for family help, this is an innocent 3yr old child.Cristobell wrote:Good point. The damage to Gerry from this statement being released must have been horrendous. No wonder they suppressed the efits. Of course DCI Redwood didn't mention that bit in the Crimewatch program, but Gerry's similarity to the efits was unmistakeable. It certainly explains Kate's shocked 'just seen a ghost' expression in that iconic photograph.Justformaddie wrote:Been thinking about this, if Martin fabricated smithman, to help Murat which is horrible on its own, but not impossible, they must at least, be on speaking terms to communicate. Like, hi mate thanks. Anyway, if Murat was called to help the mcs, then Murat probably knew or knew off the mcs. I'm confused too but, why then in sept07 would Martin tell police he's 60 to 80% sure it was gm? If Martin made it up, could he be that heartless to say he's that percent sure it was the father of the child? Would Murat not have let him know it was a favour for a friend of a friend, describe tannerman but nothing else? I understand Martin helping out Murat if he did, but I don't understand martins statement about gm.ShuBob wrote:worriedmum wrote:Tony said ''So we know that Murat lied.
What is so difficult about believing that his friend Martin Smith also lied?''
Murat may or may not have lied, but Martin Smith is a different person.
I know a lot of people but I would not call them my' friend ' just because I know them.
I agree with Cristobell. I believe the Smith family sighting and the truthfulness of the Smith family.
I'm with you two.
Until new facts emerge, it's pointless trying to convince me otherwise.
No facts all IMO
IMO
____________________
Parents=protection
Justformaddie- Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
AFAIR the Smiths were insistant that the person they saw didn't wear glasses. Robert Murat did wear glasses. It's almost like they were only interested in getting RM off the hook and placing the blame elsewhere.
Just my opinion.
Tangled Web.
Just my opinion.
Tangled Web.
Tangled Web- Posts : 303
Activity : 319
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they were testing public opinion (in terms of how many callers might give a particular name) in order to measure the probability of getting away with a whitewash? Or am I being too cynical?Pershing36 wrote:The E-fits have always baffled me.
Why did they plaster two pictures of what are clearly white Englishmen all over Crimewatch then go chasing Portuguese burglars, drug dealers and youngsters?
What was the purpose? There appears to be no purpose as they have been following another line of investigation.
Truthandjustice- Posts : 237
Activity : 240
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-09-24
28 pages and its all about the Smiths
The thead title is about possible action.
Then we have 28 pages of stuff about the Smith sighting which reprises all the other numerous threads about the Smiths.
Would be great to have a thread that did not become yet another Smiths thread...
Then we have 28 pages of stuff about the Smith sighting which reprises all the other numerous threads about the Smiths.
Would be great to have a thread that did not become yet another Smiths thread...
Praiaaa- Posts : 426
Activity : 497
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-04-17
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'm with you Cristobell.
I accept that there are some things that seem a bit odd about the Smith statements but, in my view, that's an enormous jump to saying that they all, including children, deliberately lied.
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that Martin Smith and Robert Murat were anything more than casual acquaintances so why he would put his whole family at such risk to defend him, I don't know.
We'll be discussing this issue until the cows come home, I think!
Those who believe the Smiths are honest witnesses and those who don't think they are can co-exist. The differing beliefs are not mutually exclusive. I'm quite comfortable with my position.
ShuBob- Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Praiaaa wrote:The thead title is about possible action.
Then we have 28 pages of stuff about the Smith sighting which reprises all the other numerous threads about the Smiths.
Would be great to have a thread that did not become yet another Smiths thread...
I get you Praiaaa
ShuBob- Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
I agree, so many threads are morphing into a smith thread.ShuBob wrote:Praiaaa wrote:The thead title is about possible action.
Then we have 28 pages of stuff about the Smith sighting which reprises all the other numerous threads about the Smiths.
Would be great to have a thread that did not become yet another Smiths thread...
I get you Praiaaa
Beanie- Posts : 238
Activity : 243
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-02-09
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Smithman is having exactly the desired effect.
He is taking your eye off the squirrel.
Smithman was NOT Gerry and the girl being carried was NOT Madeleine.
Whether he existed or not. Whether they are part of a Grand Conspiracy, Freemasons, Opus Dei, knew Robert Murat, are aliens from the Planet Zog, or not.
IT WAS NOT GERRY CARRYING MADELEINE at 10 pm.
All the sensible and credible evidence, and the investigative analysis, logical deduction, and intellectual and analytical development which follows from what we know tell us that
Madeleine had died and been disposed of / hidden / concealed long before that.
He is taking your eye off the squirrel.
Smithman was NOT Gerry and the girl being carried was NOT Madeleine.
Whether he existed or not. Whether they are part of a Grand Conspiracy, Freemasons, Opus Dei, knew Robert Murat, are aliens from the Planet Zog, or not.
IT WAS NOT GERRY CARRYING MADELEINE at 10 pm.
All the sensible and credible evidence, and the investigative analysis, logical deduction, and intellectual and analytical development which follows from what we know tell us that
Madeleine had died and been disposed of / hidden / concealed long before that.
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
It is possible that both the Smiths are being honest, and that the e fits are accurately portraying Gerry. The Smiths may have had their memory triggered by seeing Gerry get off the plane and thought the man they saw was Gerry, but it simply wasn't. No dishonesty or knowing Murat needed. Perhaps subconsciously they suspected Gerry was responsible (owing to a healthy level of common sense ) and so in a way saw what they were expecting when they saw him get off the plane.
The e fits could simply be belonging to one (or two) other witnesses, and witnesses of a different event. I know Redwood said on CW that they were based on recollections of 'an Irish family', but he may not have been telling the truth. I for example think he is lying when he says 'the parents are not suspects'. Perhaps presenting them on CW was just to let TM know that they are using them and believe them to be of importance. I feel that a lot of confusion around this case is partly due to our dependence on mainstream media and we always have to bear in mind that we may have a slightly skewed version of events.
I am starting to feel that Gerry carrying Maddie at ten pm didn't happen. It suggests a last minute response to an accident, which I feel couldn't have occured due to a lack of opportunity to clean up properly. The second one thinks it was planned, then surely he would have put Maddie in a bag before transporting her. Surely. A man carrying a bag is less memorable than one carrying a dead blonde child.
ETA has Exton definitely stated that the e fits he drew up are based on the Smith sighting? If so my post may be slightly irrelevant and I apologise!
The e fits could simply be belonging to one (or two) other witnesses, and witnesses of a different event. I know Redwood said on CW that they were based on recollections of 'an Irish family', but he may not have been telling the truth. I for example think he is lying when he says 'the parents are not suspects'. Perhaps presenting them on CW was just to let TM know that they are using them and believe them to be of importance. I feel that a lot of confusion around this case is partly due to our dependence on mainstream media and we always have to bear in mind that we may have a slightly skewed version of events.
I am starting to feel that Gerry carrying Maddie at ten pm didn't happen. It suggests a last minute response to an accident, which I feel couldn't have occured due to a lack of opportunity to clean up properly. The second one thinks it was planned, then surely he would have put Maddie in a bag before transporting her. Surely. A man carrying a bag is less memorable than one carrying a dead blonde child.
ETA has Exton definitely stated that the e fits he drew up are based on the Smith sighting? If so my post may be slightly irrelevant and I apologise!
nglfi- Posts : 568
Activity : 866
Likes received : 274
Join date : 2014-01-09
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
PeterMac wrote:Smithman is having exactly the desired effect.
He is taking your eye off the squirrel.
Smithman was NOT Gerry and the girl being carried was NOT Madeleine.
Whether he existed or not. Whether they are part of a Grand Conspiracy, Freemasons, Opus Dei, knew Robert Murat, are aliens from the Planet Zog, or not.
IT WAS NOT GERRY CARRYING MADELEINE at 10 pm.
All the sensible and credible evidence, and the investigative analysis, logical deduction, and intellectual and analytical development which follows from what we know tell us that
Madeleine had died and been disposed of / hidden / concealed long before that.
Guest- Guest
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
nglfi wrote:A man carrying a bag is less memorable than one carrying a dead blonde child. !
Quite so.
And a man wearing tennis kit carrying a tennis bag mid afternoon, around a resort with ten (I think) tennis courts within a 500m radius would be almost invisible.
He would be seen but not observed, and therefore also not remembered. That is why CCTV is so valuable. It sees and remembers.
"In “A Scandal in Bohemia," Holmes instructs Watson on the difference between seeing and observing:
“Quite so,” he answered, lighting a cigarette, and throwing himself down into an armchair. “You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.”
“Frequently.”
“How often?”
“Well, some hundreds of times.”
“Then how many are there?”
“How many? I don't know.”
“Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed.”
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
But didn,t the Smith,s daughter see and observe enough to give a description of this man carrying a child,why? Do you know if they have been interviewed by OG again?PeterMac wrote:nglfi wrote:A man carrying a bag is less memorable than one carrying a dead blonde child. !
Quite so.
And a man wearing tennis kit carrying a tennis bag mid afternoon, around a resort with ten (I think) tennis courts within a 500m radius would be almost invisible.
He would be seen but not observed, and therefore also not remembered. That is why CCTV is so valuable. It sees and remembers.
"In “A Scandal in Bohemia," Holmes instructs Watson on the difference between seeing and observing:
“Quite so,” he answered, lighting a cigarette, and throwing himself down into an armchair. “You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.”
“Frequently.”
“How often?”
“Well, some hundreds of times.”
“Then how many are there?”
“How many? I don't know.”
“Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed.”
fred c dobbs- Posts : 43
Activity : 51
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2014-07-12
Age : 71
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
If Brian Kennedy sent Exton to draw up an efit from the Smiths, then it didn't happen, because the Martin knew he was employed by the mcs therefor didn't speak with him at all. IMO
____________________
Parents=protection
Justformaddie- Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Very well put. I tried an experiment yesterday, no reason, just looked at cars and passers-by around me as I walked into the village, trying to observe who was where, and actively paying attention to their clothes, height etc.PeterMac wrote:nglfi wrote:A man carrying a bag is less memorable than one carrying a dead blonde child. !
Quite so.
And a man wearing tennis kit carrying a tennis bag mid afternoon, around a resort with ten (I think) tennis courts within a 500m radius would be almost invisible.
He would be seen but not observed, and therefore also not remembered. That is why CCTV is so valuable. It sees and remembers.
"In “A Scandal in Bohemia," Holmes instructs Watson on the difference between seeing and observing:
“Quite so,” he answered, lighting a cigarette, and throwing himself down into an armchair. “You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.”
“Frequently.”
“How often?”
“Well, some hundreds of times.”
“Then how many are there?”
“How many? I don't know.”
“Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed.”
This morning I can recall nothing of them.
If we heard today that a crim was known to have been on the street I was on, at that time, no way would I remember any details.
Tennis player, tennis gear, town of tennis courts - invisible.
Praiaaa- Posts : 426
Activity : 497
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-04-17
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
PeterMac wrote:Smithman is having exactly the desired effect.
He is taking your eye off the squirrel.
Smithman was NOT Gerry and the girl being carried was NOT Madeleine.
Whether he existed or not. Whether they are part of a Grand Conspiracy, Freemasons, Opus Dei, knew Robert Murat, are aliens from the Planet Zog, or not.
IT WAS NOT GERRY CARRYING MADELEINE at 10 pm.
All the sensible and credible evidence, and the investigative analysis, logical deduction, and intellectual and analytical development which follows from what we know tell us that
Madeleine had died and been disposed of / hidden / concealed long before that.
I am inclined to believe the Smiths but also tend to the theory that the disappearance and concealment happened earlier. Which brings me back to the option that allows both - Smithman was a decoy to ensure someone carrying a child resembling MM was seen by independent witnesses.
So, is it possible that Smithman WAS Gerry, but he was NOT carrying Madeleine?
So why, is the next question, did the McCanns not promote the sighting if it was part of the smoke and mirrors? Could the answer be that they hoped he would be "seen but not observed"? I.e., not identified as a 60 to 80% chance of being Gerry by the Smiths a few months later. Could it be that if Mr Smith had not made that statement, and the efit resembling GM was not subsequently produced, we would have seen the active promotion of the Smith sighting as a corroboration to back up Tannerman? Indeed, exactly as Kate did in her book?
Could Gerry have hoped that by partially concealing his face behind the head of the child he was carrying any sighting in the dark would be reported no more specifically than a tallish dark man, thirties-ish, slimish, carrying a small blond sleeping child? And they were only unable to stop saying "See, see, Jane was right, they saw him too" when Martin Smith said that actually, now he'd seen the unintentional reconstruction on the telly, he thinks it could be Gerry he saw?
Just a theory.
Guest- Guest
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Very plausibleDee Coy wrote:PeterMac wrote:Smithman is having exactly the desired effect.
He is taking your eye off the squirrel.
Smithman was NOT Gerry and the girl being carried was NOT Madeleine.
Whether he existed or not. Whether they are part of a Grand Conspiracy, Freemasons, Opus Dei, knew Robert Murat, are aliens from the Planet Zog, or not.
IT WAS NOT GERRY CARRYING MADELEINE at 10 pm.
All the sensible and credible evidence, and the investigative analysis, logical deduction, and intellectual and analytical development which follows from what we know tell us that
Madeleine had died and been disposed of / hidden / concealed long before that.
I am inclined to believe the Smiths but also tend to the theory that the disappearance and concealment happened earlier. Which brings me back to the option that allows both - Smithman was a decoy to ensure someone carrying a child resembling MM was seen by independent witnesses.
So, is it possible that Smithman WAS Gerry, but he was NOT carrying Madeleine?
So why, is the next question, did the McCanns not promote the sighting if it was part of the smoke and mirrors? Could the answer be that they hoped he would be "seen but not observed"? I.e., not identified as a 60 to 80% chance of being Gerry by the Smiths a few months later. Could it be that if Mr Smith had not made that statement, and the efit resembling GM was not subsequently produced, we would have seen the active promotion of the Smith sighting as a corroboration to back up Tannerman? Indeed, exactly as Kate did in her book?
Could Gerry have hoped that by partially concealing his face behind the head of the child he was carrying any sighting in the dark would be reported no more specifically than a tallish dark man, thirties-ish, slimish, carrying a small blond sleeping child? And they were only unable to stop saying "See, see, Jane was right, they saw him too" when Martin Smith said that actually, now he'd seen the unintentional reconstruction on the telly, he thinks it could be Gerry he saw?
Just a theory.
____________________
Parents=protection
Justformaddie- Posts : 540
Activity : 541
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Kids are much more observant than adults - they have less on their minds.fred c dobbs wrote:But didn,t the Smith,s daughter see and observe enough to give a description of this man carrying a child,why? Do you know if they have been interviewed by OG again?PeterMac wrote:nglfi wrote:A man carrying a bag is less memorable than one carrying a dead blonde child. !
Quite so.
And a man wearing tennis kit carrying a tennis bag mid afternoon, around a resort with ten (I think) tennis courts within a 500m radius would be almost invisible.
He would be seen but not observed, and therefore also not remembered. That is why CCTV is so valuable. It sees and remembers.
"In “A Scandal in Bohemia," Holmes instructs Watson on the difference between seeing and observing:
“Quite so,” he answered, lighting a cigarette, and throwing himself down into an armchair. “You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.”
“Frequently.”
“How often?”
“Well, some hundreds of times.”
“Then how many are there?”
“How many? I don't know.”
“Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed.”
When younger son was 5 he was given a standard test of being shown a picture then asked to recall the details once the book was closed. He recalled the picture in remarkable detail, and I believed I spawned a child genius. The truth however is that children's minds are blissfully trouble free, and they see exactly what is in front of them.
Cristobell- Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
Cristobell wrote:Kids are much more observant than adults - they have less on their minds.fred c dobbs wrote:
But didn,t the Smith,s daughter see and observe enough to give a description of this man carrying a child,why? Do you know if they have been interviewed by OG again?
When younger son was 5 he was given a standard test of being shown a picture then asked to recall the details once the book was closed. He recalled the picture in remarkable detail, and I believed I spawned a child genius. The truth however is that children's minds are blissfully trouble free, and they see exactly what is in front of them.
Quite, Cristobell. And this is what could have scuppered any plan of the McCanns that any decoy be merely seen but not observed, as PeterMac puts it.
They didn't bargain on the detailed description given by the pesky kid, nor for the penny-dropping moment of reclloction of Martin when he saw the footage of Gerry on the plane steps.
If Smithman was a planned decoy, I imagine the plan would have been for the decoy to keep walking until he was spotted then hotfoot it back to the OC. They would have expected the witness to be a lone adult. Instead, he found himself ensconced amongst a family group. Not ideal.
Guest- Guest
Re: Possible Action Against The Times
PeterMac wrote:Smithman is having exactly the desired effect.
He is taking your eye off the squirrel.
Smithman was NOT Gerry and the girl being carried was NOT Madeleine.
Whether he existed or not. Whether they are part of a Grand Conspiracy, Freemasons, Opus Dei, knew Robert Murat, are aliens from the Planet Zog, or not.
IT WAS NOT GERRY CARRYING MADELEINE at 10 pm.
All the sensible and credible evidence, and the investigative analysis, logical deduction, and intellectual and analytical development which follows from what we know tell us that
Madeleine had died and been disposed of / hidden / concealed long before that.
Going along with this....
Tannerman eliminated (made up)
Smithman eliminated (either made up, a poorly executed decoy or some innocent parent/child)
3 burglar suspects assumed eliminated (fully co-operative and didn't hide behind lawyers)
Seems to me a weird way of whitewashing with all the potential patsies being eliminated! Who are OG going to blame it on?
Looks to me like a wide net was thrown and slowly but surely every possible suspect is being eliminated until all that is left is the Tapas9....
TheTruthWillOut- Posts : 733
Activity : 754
Likes received : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26
Page 12 of 16 • 1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Similar topics
» "The End is Near in the Madeleine McCann Case"
» A DAY OF ACTION!
» Normal Justice Wanted: a TRIAL for Child Madeleine McCann's Parents.
» Action Kate hits Hollywood?
» Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
» A DAY OF ACTION!
» Normal Justice Wanted: a TRIAL for Child Madeleine McCann's Parents.
» Action Kate hits Hollywood?
» Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
Page 12 of 16
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum