The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Seriously?

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Guest on 01.05.11 1:19

@Big Vern wrote:WOOF WOOF!!

lol4

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Avery on 01.05.11 14:42

WTF says

It's plain to see, no one here has any reasonable, rational or plausible explanation as to why the McCanns would cover up the apparent death of their daughter, let alone go on to tell how they managed to fool the world in a cover up all created within a couple of hours.

I would answer it is beyond obvious. Gerry and his wife spent years rising above their station becoming Doctors and and thus well respected members of the community. They also had two small children left to care for. If they had been found quilty of neglect in the death of their daughter all would be lost. Their careers as doctors would be in jeapardy, they would face jail time and it is possible lost of custody of the twins. Gerry kept stating all this was for the twins, all their actions were to protect the twins. That is the why.

The how is not so complicated. They had help from the favours they called in. The world is not fooled, the PJ was not fooled and Tony is not fooled hence the questions. You may choose to be fooled by not looking at the evidence but please do not include the world.

Avery

Posts : 100
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Garth on 01.05.11 15:08

Of course you're not fooled. Strewth, anyone would think you were born yesterday!
 
I mean, what better way to cover the death of your daughter by staging an abduction and feigning your emotions. Jesus wept, she meant nothing to the McCanns, well, not as much as their lovely career at least. And what fantastic actors and actresses they are......the world believes their story..well, apart from the clever cloggs on here spear headed by the Chief detective himself...Gorden Bennett.
 
I cannot help but think that, if you were right, and infact their daughter did die (how is as yet beyond me) then why not just dispose of your daughter in the middle iof the night and say she was abducted. No need to go dine. No need to worry about getting caught carrying your dead daughter through the streets with the risk of getting spotted by the Smiths. Infact, it would even give you more time to find a fridge. No need also, to get any friends involved. No risk of needing to admit that you left the patio door unlocked.No need to risk asking your friends to check on the kids....just incase they sussed Madeleine was dead. Infact, those McCanns aint as clever as we thought are they? No you're right, were not stupid are we? They can't pull the wool over our ears! 
 
Blimey, I could really get into this detective malarky, sheeez, you don't have to be Einstein to ask questions do you?  
 
Nope, you are right........they cannot fool you!
 
ps When's Gonc's fantasy book coming out? Can't wait for another laugh!

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Avery on 01.05.11 15:33

@Garth wrote:Of course you're not fooled. Strewth, anyone would think you were born yesterday!

I mean, what better way to cover the death of your daughter by staging an abduction and feigning your emotions. Jesus wept, she meant nothing to the McCanns, well, not as much as their lovely career at least. And what fantastic actors and actresses they are......the world believes their story..well, apart from the clever cloggs on here spear headed by the Chief detective himself...Gorden Bennett.

I cannot help but think that, if you were right, and infact their daughter did die (how is as yet beyond me) then why not just dispose of your daughter in the middle iof the night and say she was abducted. No need to go dine. No need to worry about getting caught carrying your dead daughter through the streets with the risk of getting spotted by the Smiths. Infact, it would even give you more time to find a fridge. No need also, to get any friends involved. No risk of needing to admit that you left the patio door unlocked.No need to risk asking your friends to check on the kids....just incase they sussed Madeleine was dead. Infact, those McCanns aint as clever as we thought are they? No you're right, were not stupid are we? They can't pull the wool over our ears!

Blimey, I could really get into this detective malarky, sheeez, you don't have to be Einstein to ask questions do you?

Nope, you are right........they cannot fool you!

ps When's Gonc's fantasy book coming out? Can't wait for another laugh!


Sarcasm when you really can't address the facts. People who blindly believe the nonsense put out by the McCann PR machine have no answer but to ridicle.

Avery

Posts : 100
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Garth on 01.05.11 15:42

Fogive me please, i bow to your superior judgement.
 
So, oh wise one, please do tell, wot really 'appened?

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Wendy on 01.05.11 15:56

Haven't you got any homework you should be doing before The Simpson's comes on?

Wendy

Posts : 60
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by dragonfly on 01.05.11 16:46

@Garth wrote:Fogive me please, i bow to your superior judgement.
 
So, oh wise one, please do tell, wot really 'appened?

They the parents go out for dinner and booze feast dining in the back yard, kids were left by themselves as you do, its just called reasonable boundaries of parenting, no sitter service required, It was their holiday too you know!
The head fire chief in command went missing, through the non jemmied shutters during the 10 15 30 min checks
Maddie tells kate she and sean cried where were you? , kate dismiss it and thinks it could be when they were in the bath, but continues to dine in the garden Gerry says he feels their was someone in the apartment he too continues to dine in the back yard.
Kate knew the head fire chief was abducted instantly, but police must be alerted 50 mins after your child is abducted no need to rush and call them straight away it Kates holiday, The people of pdl go looking on a search, Kate and Gerry stay in doors, theirs already people looking for them what does two more matter,
Gerry decides to use the picture of maddies eye as its a good marketing ploy, Police do not want this, but what to the police know ay? its just a two bob job in it?
Dogs come in and detect rotting meat and nappies , We should ban these lousy mutts if thats the best they can come up with what a waste of money they are! Ban then from now on!
the Mccanns mate has seen the suspect , the public get a mug shot for the public to look out for the egg man, kate is pleased "Gerry put on another great performance"
Gerry wants Sandra to Ask the dogs, they chat to the press about "The situation Madeleine finds herself in" and "If Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?" public are divided /confused but Gerry seems ok with this
One good thing to come out of all of this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true and what isn't' - Gerry McCann, I mean at least he is sleeping well now, The days of his student loan being over drawn are long gone, They set up a fund, some bugger squanders it then they find out their investigator is a fraudster, The Police man writes a book, they are angry, how dare he write a book about Maddie, Kate then writes a book about Maddie,
4years on no one the wiser Mccanns are still going through the un turned stones, (And the public who have paid for the travel packs and bracelets are having to use facebook to chase up for their goods which have not been sent out and their posters of Maddie----the end



____________________


dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Big Vern on 01.05.11 17:17

It's a shame this forum allows idiots on it....lowers the tone of the place.
One of the reasons I'm not as active here as I would otherwise be.
For goodness sake kick them all into touch and let's get on with the task at hand which is obtaining justice for the poor child.

____________________
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive

Big Vern

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Flashford Thomas on 01.05.11 17:25

26 posts in 6 months isn't very active Mr Vern.

I suspect "idiots" can have their say here whether they are a guest or registered member. Perhaps you should be a tad more tolerant of those who wish to have their say? It would seem that from all the guests who have posted here there are only 1 or 2 who don't measure up to your standards. It certainly took me many months of reading here to register and I actually find this forum to be very pleasant.

Flashford Thomas

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Guest on 01.05.11 17:31

@Flashford Thomas wrote:26 posts in 6 months isn't very active Mr Vern.

I suspect "idiots" can have their say here whether they are a guest or registered member. Perhaps you should be a tad more tolerant of those who wish to have their say? It would seem that from all the guests who have posted here there are only 1 or 2 who don't measure up to your standards. It certainly took me many months of reading here to register and I actually find this forum to be very pleasant.


Thank you Flashford Thomas thumbsup

BigVern, we have many guests reading here, and thought it might be a good idea for those who wanted to post, and get a feel for the forum to be able to do so. Of course there will be those, and as Flashford Thomas has said, it is only a couple who will try to disrupt, but it only shows that they have no real arguments and can't debate properly yes They will be back at school shortly winkwink titter

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Garth on 01.05.11 19:58

Candyfloss
 
 
FT never said 'disrupt'. What the poster actually said was 'measure up to your standards'. I don't think you've purpos.fully twisted the points made but merely misunderstood the point
 
And yes, I can debate sensibly, but when you have 'idiots' who throw their dummies out of the pram when they can't have their own way, debates impossible anyway.
 
I'm also sure that by allowing posters with different views makes for a healthier forum because at the end of the day, we all want this case resolved...............whoever's behind the little girls disappearance!
 
I've also made the point regarding the abduction, in that, if Madeleine had come to harm in their absence ( seems to be the majority of belief on this forum) then why not wait until the middle of the night to dispose of her body? It would have given them more time to 'think up' their plan instead of running the risk of getting sussed at the dinner table.........which never happened anyway......unless of course you believe the friends are also involved to cover up the death of the McCanns daughter, which is even harder to believe. Jeez, JT and hubby weren't long life friends...........they hardly knew them.
 
So there you go Candyfloss, not trying to disrupt at all, but moreover, a valid point to debate which, maybe you'd like to answer?
 

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by MikeyB on 01.05.11 20:04

@Garth wrote:I've also made the point regarding the abduction, in that, if Madeleine had come to harm in their absence ( seems to be the majority of belief on this forum) then why not wait until the middle of the night to dispose of her body? It would have given them more time to 'think up' their plan instead of running the risk of getting sussed at the dinner table.........which never happened anyway......
 

How do you know?

MikeyB

Posts : 29
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Guest on 01.05.11 20:09

So according to your thinking if she came to harm in their absence, they came home to find this, and would have been better to have executed their plan in the middle of the night?? So how would they explain her not being there the next morning? Would they have called the police then? And say what, she was taken whilst they were there. How would they explain her absence the next day??

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by MikeyB on 01.05.11 20:13

@Garth wrote:And yes, I can debate sensibly, but when you have 'idiots' who throw their dummies out of the pram when they can't have their own way, debates impossible anyway.
 

@Garth wrote:The only thing fishy about this case is that dodgy sardine munching detective, Gonc the perjurer.

You seriously expect us to accept you as a sensible debator when you say things like this?

MikeyB

Posts : 29
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Garth on 01.05.11 20:57

Candyfloss
 
Do you remember the school girl who was murdered in her dormitory? The French guy suffocated and sexually assaulted her whilst the other girls slept in the SAME ROOM.
 
Maybe you'll understand that taking a child, even whilst the parents sleep in the other room, is not as unbelievable as you'd like to think.
 
And obviously you'd phone the police in the morning when you'd discovered her missing.
 
So, and there you have it, a far easier way to dispose of your child without running the apparent risk of getting spotted by passers by such as the Smiths. And far more time to think up your plan.............and no need for a fridge!  
 
Simple really. 
 
 
 

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Guest on 01.05.11 21:03

@Garth wrote:Candyfloss
 
Do you remember the school girl who was murdered in her dormitory? The French guy suffocated and sexually assaulted her whilst the other girls slept in the SAME ROOM.
 
Maybe you'll understand that taking a child, even whilst the parents sleep in the other room, is not as unbelievable as you'd like to think.
 
And obviously you'd phone the police in the morning when you'd discovered her missing.
 
So, and there you have it, a far easier way to dispose of your child without running the apparent risk of getting spotted by passers by such as the Smiths. And far more time to think up your plan.............and no need for a fridge!  
 
Simple really. 
 
 
 


Not really simple at all though is it. It would be far more normal to walk round with a lets say sleeping child, at that time of night, then to risk being seen carrying one in the middle of the night. How would you explain that away. And in a holiday resort, there are more likely to be people sitting drinking on balconies etc., you might quite easily get spotted. Not such a good plan really.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Gracias on 01.05.11 21:05

Garth: And obviously you'd phone the police in the morning when you'd discovered her missing.

But they 'discovered her missing at night' and phoned the police at night so why are you throwing this into the equation? You really make no sense.

Gracias
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Garth on 01.05.11 21:26

Oh right, so you think it far easier to walk around the streets shortly after a girl goes missing where people may recognise you rather than put her in a bag or something and dispose of her body at say 5 in the morning? Yeah right!

And Gracias, I would take the time to read again, it aint that hard to follow.

Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Guest on 01.05.11 21:32

@Garth wrote:Oh right, so you think it far easier to walk around the streets shortly after a girl goes missing where people may recognise you rather than put her in a bag or something and dispose of her body at say 5 in the morning? Yeah right!

And Gracias, I would take the time to read again, it aint that hard to follow.

Yeah right, and if someone saw you, at that time of the morning, you would certainly have some explaining to do,as to what you were doing, if your child went missing, and you had only reported it in the morning when you woke. Not so clever eh!!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Gracias on 01.05.11 21:33

So you think Madeleine was put in a bag and disposed of at 5am?

How do you account for her death scent and bodily fluids being found in the hire car 3 weeks later?

Gracias
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by Garth on 01.05.11 21:44

So you see trying to hide your daughter by carrying her around the streets whilst your absent from the dining table and where more people are likely to be coming out of pubs etc as easier than hiding her body at the dead of night?

I give in................ flag






Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by newguest on 12.05.11 20:48

Garth on Sun May 01, 2011 8:57 pm

Candyfloss
 
Do you remember the school girl who was murdered in her dormitory? The French guy suffocated and sexually assaulted her whilst the other girls slept in the SAME ROOM.
 
Maybe you'll understand that taking a child, even whilst the parents sleep in the other room, is not as unbelievable as you'd like to think.

Garth do remember the harrowing  case of rape & murder of 2-year-old Casey Leigh Mullen in her own bed much closer to home in the UK?



Maybe you should understand that the murder of young children by people known to them (i.e. family members/friends) is not as 'unbelievable' as you'd like to think but I seriously doubt it.

London Evening Standard - 02.07.07

The 'loved and trusted' uncle who raped then strangled his two-year-old niece in her bed

The man who raped and murdered his two-year-old niece has been jailed for life for a crime condemned as "wickedness beyond belief".

Michael Mullen, 21, attacked Casey Leigh Mullen in her bed while her unsuspecting parents sat talking downstairs.

He crept into her bedroom, raped and then strangled her before calling a taxi to take him home.

Soon after he left, Casey's mother Samantha Canham, 20, found her daughter lying beneath the covers in a pool of blood.

Mullen, a part-time barman, pleaded guilty to rape and murder and was told that he would have to serve a minimum of 35 years.

He showed little emotion as Mr Justice Simon described him as "a very dangerous man capable of lethal and violent sexual crimes against children".

The judge went on: "How and why you came to commit these crimes against Casey, who would have felt safe and secure in your presence, is beyond all understanding.

"The rape and murder of this little girl by someone she trusted and loved were appalling crimes."

The judge said it was not clear if there would ever be a time when Mullen was not a threat to children.

Mullen had no convictions for paedophilia and Casey's family said they had no reason to believe he was a threat.

But a picture of the little girl naked from the waist down was found on his mobile phone and there were indecent images of children on his home computer. One involved sadism.

Leeds Crown Court heard that Mullen, who was on probation for car theft, had been drinking with his brother David, 20, who was Casey's father, in the hours before the attack on February 11 this year.

By the time they arrived at the home Miss Canham shared with her brother Lee in the Gipton area of Leeds, Michael Mullen was more than twice the drink-drive limit.

Leaving the others talking, he made his way upstairs and into Casey's bedroom.

Soon afterwards, his brother saw him asleep on top of the duvet next to Casey - it was not uncommon for family members to lie next to the little girl, the court was told.

But by the time Miss Canham's brother went up with a bottle of hot chocolate, he was under the covers.

Mullen later made his way downstairs and "appeared to be in a rush to get out of the house" said Robert Smith, QC, prosecuting.

He and his brother left in a taxi for their mother's home in nearby Meanwood.

It was only when Lee Canham went back to check on Casey that he found her curled up in a pool of blood beneath the covers.

She was pronounced dead in hospital 40 minutes later. A post-mortem examination found that Casey was deliberately strangled using a ligature, possibly a flex, thin string or mobile phone charging wire.

It had been applied tightly and firmly to the neck and pressure had been applied, the court heard.

Mullen was arrested four hours after the attack when he is said to have been "shaking uncontrollably".

He confessed three days later. He insists that he does not recall what happened because of the amount of alcohol he had consumed.

Raymond Walker, for Mullen, said his actions had been "impulsive" and claimed the attack was not planned or premeditated.

Throughout the hearing Mullen sat hunched in the dock, refusing to look at relatives and friends of the family in the public gallery who sobbed and consoled each other as the harrowing details were outlined.

After the hearing Casey's parents said they were "relieved" Mullen had been jailed.

"We have some very happy memories of Casey Leigh and she will always be in our thoughts and in our hearts," they said in a statement.

"She was a special little girl."

Detective Superintendent Steve Payne, who led the inquiry, said: "Michael Mullen committed an act of wickedness beyond belief.

"What he did is beyond the comprehension of a normal society.

"Casey Leigh Mullen lived a short life which was brought to a very brutal end by a man she should have been able to trust."

newguest
Guest


Back to top Go down

re:seriously

Post by justme2 on 13.05.11 21:34

There are far too many questions unanswered for me to believe that the McCann’s had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance. For example, if a child of mine had suddenly disappeared without trace, I would have known EXACTLY what time events unfolded. Besides all the refusals to answer questions, when questioned, the discrepancies in whether the shutters were "jemmied". The total different stories of who did what after they had discovered that Maddie had gone.

 Also, why aren't we told what each person was wearing on the night of Maddie going missing? Why did the McCann's get out of the country, they had previously refused to leave, soon after they were made arquidos?

 There is too much that stinks about this whole case. According to the McCann's, they have "called for government intervention, to get the evidence reassessed. There's a familiar saying "be careful what you wish for".
 

justme2
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Seriously?

Post by newguest on 19.05.11 11:32


WTF on Tue May 17, 2011 9:44 pm
i'm Xaus, Garth is Garth. We own the same company and live in the same dwelling. And yes, I am ex SAS.


I sincerely hope Corporal Ian Tuckley in not a friend of yours Xaus 

Mail on Sunday wins battle to name SAS soldier on child sex charges

14th May 2011

An SAS soldier accused of sexual offences against children can be named today after The Mail on Sunday overturned a draconian order preventing the public finding out about his alleged crimes.

Corporal Ian Tuckley faces 31 charges, including raping and indecently assaulting girls as young as six.

The soldier, who served with the 22 Regiment of the elite commando force in Iraq and Afghanistan, is in custody and awaiting trial.

He could not be publicly identified until now because of a rare ‘secrecy order’ imposed by a judge at the request of Government lawyers.

Neither the Crown Prosecution Service nor Tuckley’s own defence team had sought the order. It was applied for by an unnamed ‘interested party’, understood to be the Ministry of Defence.

Last night Whitehall officials were criticised by Lib Dem MP John Hemming for attempting to keep the matter under wraps.

Mr Hemming, who has campaigned against the granting of ‘super injunctions’ to celebrities and wealthy businessmen over their private lives, said: ‘I suspect the order was sought to protect the MoD from embarrassment. There seems to be almost no resistance to imposing secrecy orders for a range of reasons.

There needs to be a rebalancing to protect freedom of speech and the right of the Press to report the facts.

‘The MoD’s reasoning in this case is spurious. Someone may be at risk in prison because he is accused of paedophile offences. But I don’t think he would be at risk because he is a soldier.’

The concealment of Tuckley’s name and profession was believed to be an unprecedented move in a criminal case of this kind. And bizarrely, a second defendant in the case was not granted anonymity. This newspaper tried to bring the matter into the open in March when it published an article headlined ‘Public servant on “child sex” charges but MoS is barred from telling you anything about him.’

This newspaper then applied for the gagging order to be lifted.

After a series of hearings, Judge Alistair McCreath agreed to do so, after declaring that he viewed such restrictions with ‘deep disquiet’.

He described the all-embracing nature of the order as ‘wholly Kafka-esque’.

Tuckley, 31, from Walsall, West Midlands, allegedly carried out the assaults between 1997 and 2010.

He and another man, Martin Finney, were arrested last October after an investigation involving West Midlands and West Mercia Police and the Royal Military Police.

The SAS soldier, wearing a dark jacket and open-necked shirt, sat in the dock at Worcester Crown Court, flanked by two prison officers, as arguments for and against the secrecy order were put to the judge.

Finney, 40, a former paramedic with St John Ambulance, is charged with 24 sex offences, including the rape of a schoolgirl.

He is also accused of drugging one of his victims with nitrous oxide – laughing gas – ‘with the intention of stupefying or overpowering’ them.

The pair, who deny the offences, are due to stand trial next month and the case is expected to last up to three weeks.

The Judicial Communications Office said: ‘The judge received submissions from all parties and decided the right of the Press to report freely and openly should be upheld.’

An MoD spokesman said: ‘We do not comment on Special Forces.’

newguest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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