The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Tuesday.

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Hicks on 05.09.14 14:21

@palm tree wrote:Even if it was my brother, there's no way would I cover up the death never mind cleaning the scene. I couldn't stand by and watch as he carried her off to be disposed off. I'd risk the slap on the wrist rather than involvement of part of the concelement of the death of a child.
IMO
I think that would be the response of most people who found themselves in the same situation..........unless they had something to hide of course.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 05.09.14 14:49

@Hicks wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Even if it was my brother, there's no way would I cover up the death never mind cleaning the scene. I couldn't stand by and watch as he carried her off to be disposed off. I'd risk the slap on the wrist rather than involvement of part of the concelement of the death of a child.
IMO
I think that would be the response of most people who found themselves in the same situation..........unless they had something to hide of course.
There has to be something very wrong in this case, there's no evidence of abduction, no evidence of a break in, no evidence of theft, no evidence of an intruder but there is evidence of a death and a child is missing.
IMO

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tuesday

Post by Dont Make Me Laff on 05.09.14 15:52

@palmtree - "There has to be something very wrong in this case, there's no evidence of abduction, no evidence of a break in, no evidence of theft, no evidence of an intruder but there is evidence of a death and a child is missing.
IMO"



100% correct.
I just can't understand why all the people that have been involved/investigated have drawn a blank. (except GA)
Why is everyone so afraid - I don't think they can justify it's because they may be sued - If I was in charge of this case I would arrange a sting so that everyone of the T9 were brought in for questioning at the same time/day so they could not have a chance to confer. That's the only way they are going to get one of them to spill. It only takes one and the flood gates will open. (imo)

Will this become another "Jack The Ripper" of Victorian England case? which to date remains unsolved?

Dont Make Me Laff

Posts : 304
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-18
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 05.09.14 16:07

It seems in this case the MSM take one look at what is involved and collectively go....


TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Dont Make Me Laff on 05.09.14 16:20

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:It seems in this case the MSM take one look at what is involved and collectively go....



I can't stop laughing big grin

Dont Make Me Laff

Posts : 304
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-18
Location : Kent

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 05.09.14 16:21

@Dont Make Me Laff wrote:@palmtree - "There has to be something very wrong in this case, there's no evidence of abduction, no evidence of a break in, no evidence of theft, no evidence of an intruder but there is evidence of a death and a child is missing.
IMO"



100% correct.
I just can't understand why all the people that have been involved/investigated have drawn a blank. (except GA)
Why is everyone so afraid - I don't think they can justify it's because they may be sued - If I was in charge of this case I would arrange a sting so that everyone of the T9 were brought in for questioning at the same time/day so they could not have a chance to confer. That's the only way they are going to get one of them to spill. It only takes one and the flood gates will open. (imo)

Will this become another "Jack The Ripper" of Victorian England case? which to date remains unsolved?
I'm sure we all have our theories on what went on,I just don't think the T7 are directly involved,I don't think they knew exactly what went on but they were persuaded to cloud the time lines at the start to cover themselves under a threat of exposer to swinging or some other  activities maybe not illegal but enough to damage reputations.I just think in the years since one of them would have talked maybe let something slip under the influence.To me Mr Amaral is the misplaced log in the woodpile he was close to getting to the bottom of this and needed silencing,but no he wouldn't play ball he wouldn't even settle out of court,if and its a big if the libel gets settled anytime soon and Mr Amaral wins then I believe this will open up the can of worms,all in my opinion of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Gaggzy on 05.09.14 16:27

@palm tree wrote:
@Hicks wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Even if it was my brother, there's no way would I cover up the death never mind cleaning the scene. I couldn't stand by and watch as he carried her off to be disposed off. I'd risk the slap on the wrist rather than involvement of part of the concelement of the death of a child.
IMO
I think that would be the response of most people who found themselves in the same situation..........unless they had something to hide of course.
There has to be something very wrong in this case, there's no evidence of abduction, no evidence of a break in, no evidence of theft, no evidence of an intruder but there is evidence of a death and a child is missing.
IMO

..... and in the opinion of many thousands of other people.

Gaggzy

Posts : 488
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2014-06-08
Location : North West.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 05.09.14 17:14

That's what I don't understand either, it's all there, in front of police eyes. IMO, Mr Amaral, the police officer who had nothing to lose was the one who got too close to the truth, then removed. Why now, will OG only investigate abduction? How can the mcs with lots of evidence against them, live like lords and IMO, laugh in the faces of authority? GAs  only job was to find maddie and/or the guilty, like most policemen (hopefully). Innocent children deserve a peaceful and respected place to rest, how could anyone not fight that right for her?
All my opinion only.

____________________
Fight for Madeleine

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 05.09.14 18:09

@palm tree wrote:Even if it was my brother, there's no way would I cover up the death never mind cleaning the scene. I couldn't stand by and watch as he carried her off to be disposed off. I'd risk the slap on the wrist rather than involvement of part of the concelement of the death of a child.
IMO
I don't think he was 'disposing' of her or even planned on concealing the death at that point - they just wanted the body out of the apartment to avoid suspicion falling on themselves. So that they could blame someone else if the child had a terrible injury or had been given sedatives or something else that would incriminate them.


If I remember correctly, they had all been drinking a fair amount of wine that evening and, in the case of the McCanns at least, had started drinking before they even went to dinner. Don't you think it's possible that their judgement may have been somewhat impaired, even before you add the shock factor? And with there being so many of them present, they may have been reluctant to argue the point and went along with the plan because everyone else seemed to be all right with it. A shining example of herd mentality.


If you think a spur-of-the-moment decision to help out is unlikely, then how much more unlikely is it that 7 people - some of whom barely knew the McCanns - spent a day or two mulling over all the possibilities with them while totally sober, and carefully planning not only the disposal of the child's body, but a huge and detailed campaign of misinformation to avoid suspicion? Possibly including faked crèche records, borrowing each other's children, faked photographs, false alibis, hiding the body, planning to call in favours from secret government and media contacts, and all the while keeping up the appearance of happy, carefree holidaymakers? That is a far more sinister scenario which truly does require a complex and appropriately sinister explanation.

But the spur-of-the-moment decision is still more likely. And it doesn't require any lurid, rumour-based speculation about swingers or paedophiles or the spilling of state secrets. It's just a group of people making a choice - normal human behaviour. We don't always make the right choices. The Tapas 9 made theirs, and have been obliged to see it through ever since. No way back.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 05.09.14 18:33

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
But the spur-of-the-moment decision is still more likely. And it doesn't require any lurid, rumour-based speculation about swingers or paedophiles or the spilling of state secrets. It's just a group of people making a choice - normal human behaviour. We don't always make the right choices. The Tapas 9 made theirs, and have been obliged to see it through ever since. No way back.
But something must bind them to silence,they may have made a choice but I just can't see that not one of them would let something slip."There's many a slip twixt cup and the lip".

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 05.09.14 19:06

WMD wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
But the spur-of-the-moment decision is still more likely. And it doesn't require any lurid, rumour-based speculation about swingers or paedophiles or the spilling of state secrets. It's just a group of people making a choice - normal human behaviour. We don't always make the right choices. The Tapas 9 made theirs, and have been obliged to see it through ever since. No way back.
But something must bind them to silence,they may have made a choice but I just can't see that not one of them would let something slip."There's many a slip twixt cup and the lip".

Why not? It's not in their interests to let anything slip. They are not protecting the McCanns - they are protecting themselves. They don't want their lives ruined. They don't want their children's lives ruined. We're not talking about taking the rap for a speeding ticket here - this is a child's life and they committed an extremely serious offence, and then compounded it with every statement they made afterwards. Of course they are not going to let something slip - they will be on their guard against it every day of their lives!

They do not give interviews to the press; they avoided the reconstruction; they have not (as far as I know) appeared in court to defend the McCanns in the libel trial. They avoid any situation which might put them under pressure and trick them into saying something they might regret. They keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They are sober, intelligent, middle-aged people with responsible jobs - not exactly a demographic known for getting drunk down the pub and boasting about their criminal exploits. Much as we might like them to!

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 05.09.14 19:28

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
WMD wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
But the spur-of-the-moment decision is still more likely. And it doesn't require any lurid, rumour-based speculation about swingers or paedophiles or the spilling of state secrets. It's just a group of people making a choice - normal human behaviour. We don't always make the right choices. The Tapas 9 made theirs, and have been obliged to see it through ever since. No way back.
But something must bind them to silence,they may have made a choice but I just can't see that not one of them would let something slip."There's many a slip twixt cup and the lip".

Why not? It's not in their interests to let anything slip. They are not protecting the McCanns - they are protecting themselves. They don't want their lives ruined. They don't want their children's lives ruined. We're not talking about taking the rap for a speeding ticket here - this is a child's life and they committed an extremely serious offence, and then compounded it with every statement they made afterwards. Of course they are not going to let something slip - they will be on their guard against it every day of their lives!

They do not give interviews to the press; they avoided the reconstruction; they have not (as far as I know) appeared in court to defend the McCanns in the libel trial. They avoid any situation which might put them under pressure and trick them into saying something they might regret. They keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They are sober, intelligent, middle-aged people with responsible jobs - not exactly a demographic known for getting drunk down the pub and boasting about their criminal exploits. Much as we might like them to!
You say they don't want their lives ruined but it will always be tainted now with the association in this. Its true they don't court publicity and its interesting to note they haven't apparently supported the McCanns in the libel actions,have they actually come out in support of the abduction,apart from Tanner allegedly seeing some one which as been discounted.I just think they are peripheral to the bigger picture.Out of interest in the truth of lie does Amaral think they are involved in any way,I've not read it all just bits and parts.IMO of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 05.09.14 19:56

WMD wrote:You say they don't want their lives ruined but it will always be tainted now with the association in this. Its true they don't court publicity and its interesting to note they haven't apparently supported the McCanns in the libel actions,have they actually come out in support of the abduction,apart from Tanner allegedly seeing some one which as been discounted.I just think they are peripheral to the bigger picture.Out of interest in the truth of lie does Amaral think they are involved in any way,I've not read it all just bits and parts.IMO of course.
Being tainted by association is one thing.

Being convicted of perjury and losing your job, your home, your children, your status, your freedom and your dreams is quite another!

I think Goncalo Amaral was suspicious of the tapas group because of the inconsistencies in their statements, but I'm not sure how far he thought their involvement went.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 05.09.14 20:37

When trying to justify something, I always try and put myself in the same position, a few glasses of wine over dinner, running to an apartment of a good friend (some hardly new each other), finding a nearly four year old child dead behind a sofa, with my own children still safe, would I panic and start cleaning the crime scene whilst my mate disposes or dumps the body hoping she'll be found soon? Or would I calm my friend down telling him MW does the same type of listening service at other resorts and that he'd been checking more regularly than they would've done so don't panic, tell the truth (under grounds of responsible parenting) and all that? IMO, the second one would be the safest choice for myself and my family.
IMO

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Newintown on 05.09.14 20:44

@palm tree wrote:When trying to justify something, I always try and put myself in the same position, a few glasses of wine over dinner, running to an apartment of a good friend (some hardly new each other), finding a nearly four year old child dead behind a sofa, with my own children still safe, would I panic and start cleaning the crime scene whilst my mate disposes or dumps the body hoping she'll be found soon? Or would I calm my friend down telling him MW does the same type of listening service at other resorts and that he'd been checking more regularly than they would've done so don't panic, tell the truth (under grounds of responsible parenting) and all that? IMO, the second one would be the safest choice for myself and my family.
IMO

Don't forget that K & G McCann never got off their backsides to check on any of their friends' children, so why were their friends running around like headless chickens checking on K & G McCanns' children when they themselves couldn't be arsed to check on their friends children???

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by sharonl on 05.09.14 21:43

I have been going through the witness statements of the OC staff, there are many off them but I have not come across one employee, apart from Cat Baker and Charlotte Pennington, who has said that the definitely say Madeleine on that holiday.

I find this very odd, surely at least one independent witness would have remembered seeing her even if it was just in passing by.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3607
Reputation : 436
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 05.09.14 22:26

@palm tree wrote:
When trying to justify something, I always try and put myself in the same position, a few glasses of wine over dinner, running to an apartment of a good friend (some hardly new each other), finding a nearly four year old child dead behind a sofa, with my own children still safe, would I panic and start cleaning the crime scene whilst my mate disposes or dumps the body hoping she'll be found soon? Or would I calm my friend down telling him MW does the same type of listening service at other resorts and that he'd been checking more regularly than they would've done so don't panic, tell the truth (under grounds of responsible parenting) and all that? IMO, the second one would be the safest choice for myself and my family.
IMO
What if the "regular checks" were just something that you and your friend invented afterwards to make yourselves look better?


How is your friend going to reconcile his "regular checks" with the fact that he did not notice that his child was out of bed and dead for more than an hour?


How can either of you use the "listening service" argument when you were specifically told that it was not considered safe at this particular resort, and were offered a babysitting service instead - which you rejected?


How can you claim responsible parenting in court knowing that if you came across someone in your line of work who had left toddlers alone to go out drinking, you would be obliged to report it to Social Services and the police, and that the person in question would likely end up with a conviction for child abandonment or neglect?


Would a conviction of this nature have the same devastating effect on your life as it would for a doctor? Would you lose the job that you spent years training for, and be unable to pay for the house, the lifestyle and everything that you had become accustomed to? After all those years of hard work to provide a secure and comfortable sanctuary for your family to grow up in, suddenly it seems that they might end up living on the breadline in a damp, rented flat with one or both parents in prison, or even being taken into care. This reasoning would not apply for most people - they could take the hit, keep their job and move on with their life. But if you are working in a profession that requires CRB checks and an impeccable background, the implications are immense and daunting. Your negligent actions as parents are now about to come to the attention of the police and, since you are guilty of the exact same crime as your friend, you are staring all these possibilities in the face yourself. And shock and alcohol combine to make the prospect seem terrifyingly real and imminent.


Your reaction as described above might be reasonable, but only if you truly believe that you really have been a responsible parent and haven't done anything wrong. It is the reaction of someone who is detached from the situation and knows they have nothing to fear themselves. But if you knew you were in the wrong as well, your natural and instinctive reaction is surely more likely to be "Oh s***, how am I going to get out of this?!"

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 06.09.14 9:06

First of all, there's absolutely no way on this god given earth would I EVER abandon any of my children anywhere, I just cannot even think about, BUT,maybe that's the difference with me trying to put myself in one of the tapas7 shoes! Hell, I have a wedding at 3 o'clock today, mine are 12, 9 and 6, when it's time for them to go, myself and partner will be going with them, their mine and my responsibility, I choose to have them. That's probably why I can't see how the friends would cover for them. Seriously, fill me with alcohol and put me in an apartment where's there's a nearly four years old body of my friends little girl, I will still phone an ambulance before I even have the chance to think of ANYTHING  or ANYONE else.
All in my opinion.

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by inspirespirit on 06.09.14 14:45

4 of the Tapas lot barely knew the McCanns.  Why would you lie for them and put your lives on the line for people you barely knew?   I really think the only thing that could be a common denominator would be that they all sedated their children.

The only other thing could be that only a couple of the Tapas lot were in it.  Old 'we have a pact' Payne for one.  JT apparently didn't even like GM, so why on God's earth would she cover for him, barely knowing him and not liking the bit she did know.

It gets more confusing the more I read, which no doubt, is exactly what they wanted. Total confusion all around.

inspirespirit

Posts : 179
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2014-06-26
Age : 63

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Newintown on 06.09.14 15:40

@inspirespirit wrote:4 of the Tapas lot barely knew the McCanns.  Why would you lie for them and put your lives on the line for people you barely knew?   I really think the only thing that could be a common denominator would be that they all sedated their children.

The only other thing could be that only a couple of the Tapas lot were in it.  Old 'we have a pact' Payne for one.  JT apparently didn't even like GM, so why on God's earth would she cover for him, barely knowing him and not liking the bit she did know.

It gets more confusing the more I read, which no doubt, is exactly what they wanted. Total confusion all around.

The only reason I can think of is why they all sedated their children was because they wanted some quality time together - throwing their keys into a pot comes to mind, imo.  As KM stated "they were all into each other".   Other more darker thoughts come to mind but I won't go into those.

If they were all "enjoying the company of each other, whether they liked each other or not, obviously they would be choosy" they may have all been complicit in abandoning their children for hours on end, while they had fun as a group (or even with outsiders).

As I mentioned in a previous post one of the bar tenders complained about the Tapas 9 as they were still wanting drinks at 11 p.m. when he wanted to close the bar.  Whether that was at the Tapas bar or the Millennium bar, I can't remember at the moment, but it obviously shows that the group were out until at least 11 p.m. if not later.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 06.09.14 22:15

Remember too, Tuesday night was the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying til 11:45, but, according to km, that was the Wednesday night!  Which is it Kate? Whichever sounds right to the person your speaking to?
IMO

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 06.09.14 22:46

@palm tree wrote:First of all, there's absolutely no way on this god given earth would I EVER abandon any of my children anywhere, I just cannot even think about, BUT,maybe that's the difference with me trying to put myself in one of the tapas7 shoes! Hell, I have a wedding at 3 o'clock today, mine are 12, 9 and 6, when it's time for them to go, myself and partner will be going with them, their mine and my responsibility, I choose to have them. That's probably why I can't see how the friends would cover for them. Seriously, fill me with alcohol and put me in an apartment where's there's a nearly four years old body of my friends little girl, I will still phone an ambulance before I even have the chance to think of ANYTHING  or ANYONE else.
All in my opinion.
Well I wouldn't leave my children anywhere either, but the Tapas friends obviously didn't have any qualms about doing that. Just because you personally would not dream of doing something, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else on the planet will react in the same way.

The point I'm trying to make is that this is the simplest explanation for the involvement of the friends. Sure, it may not be correct. But at least panicking and doing something stupid in the heat of the moment is fairly standard human behaviour, even if this is a somewhat extreme example.

But the theory that Madeleine died on the Tuesday or Wednesday and that these people spent a day or more colluding in cold blood to find the best way to cover up the death - that requires a whole new level of inhumanity and evil. You would struggle to find one person who would do such a thing, never mind 8 or 9 of them in the same place. Why would you find that scenario more believable?

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by XTC on 06.09.14 22:46

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
WMD wrote:You say they don't want their lives ruined but it will always be tainted now with the association in this. Its true they don't court publicity and its interesting to note they haven't apparently supported the McCanns in the libel actions,have they actually come out in support of the abduction,apart from Tanner allegedly seeing some one which as been discounted.I just think they are peripheral to the bigger picture.Out of interest in the truth of lie does Amaral think they are involved in any way,I've not read it all just bits and parts.IMO of course.
Being tainted by association is one thing.

Being convicted of perjury and losing your job, your home, your children, your status, your freedom and your dreams is quite another!

I think Goncalo Amaral was suspicious of the tapas group because of the inconsistencies in their statements, but I'm not sure how far he thought their involvement went.
Fair enough, these are very good points.

Taking the Payne's as an example. They say they had a baby listening device ( a baby monitor ) which they considered superior to baby mointoring at other resorts. JT refers to one also but whether it worked is negated by her and RO's alleged checking.

MO said he checked his and the McCanns apartment. Mr McCann says he checked his of course.

Reputations to protect or not if they were lying at the time and the truth had have come out it would have been much worse than the situation they found themselves in ( to coin a phrase) originally,  simply because they would be made out to be complete liars. Imagine if a body had have been found early on and they were complicit in covering that up? That's damage to reputation alright of the worst kind. I think.

Which brings my opinion back to possible complicity.

In my humble opinion the reason for being economic with the actualitie is that they must feel partly or wholely to blame for Madeleine's fate.

The revealtion of her fate is inextricably linked with their own fate if you like. Hence the silence.

That's all I can think of as a reason for covering up even if I was the McCanns best mates.

Stalker has a point I think.

Opinion though.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 06.09.14 23:57

I think there probably is more to it than just also having left their children alone - the sedation theory has always seemed quite plausible to me. It only takes one doctor to supply a couple of the others with a prescription drug they happen to have brought along with them and bingo, they're all involved. (What with one child sick, one child dead and two children who cannot apparently be woken up, there is a definite possibility that something was going on that night - sounds like they misjudged their doses.)

But whatever it was that compelled them to assist in the cover-up, I still believe it was a spur of the moment thing. The Tuesday / Wednesday theories are so far-fetched and over-elaborate, and we are not talking about a bunch of criminal masterminds here. They are just ordinary people with ordinary lives. The chances are that the story behind Madeleine's disappearance is not nearly as spectacularly out-of-the-ordinary as many people think.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 07.09.14 1:01

Sorry, never said I believe the Monday or Tuesday scenario, but keep options open. The fact that there was nine people possibly involved, makes it even more unbelievable. IMO, the less knows, the better. There is one who wanted to tell more, but didn't then.

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum