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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

BUNKERED

View previous topic View next topic Go down

BUNKERED

Post by Guest on 04.08.11 18:18

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
04 August 2011


BUNKERED

The McCanns may have been playing four-ball with us down by the sea-side in Portugal, but they'll need more than a sand wedge to dig themselves out of this.

Remember that trip to the beach on Tuesday 1 May - the one that didn't last too long because the weather was unkind and Madeleine preferred to be with her Mini Club playmates? And how the McCanns took the children back to their separate crèches for the last hour and a half, yet somehow managed to sign them in over an hour beforehand? Well it turns out they did something even more remarkable. They seem to have left Madeleine all on her own at the creche. (Some holiday!).

Although Madeleine was not signed out at the end of the day, her brother and sister were - at 5.20 p.m. We are at liberty to infer therefore that, collectively, their last hour and a half began at around 3.45 p.m., despite all three children having been signed in, apparently, at 2.30 p.m. that afternoon. Clerical error on the part of both parents no doubt.

Now here's the weird bit.

Mark Warner Nanny, Catriona Baker, gave a statement to the PJ on 10 May 2007, during which she told them that the only days they took the children to the beach were Tuesday afternoon (1 May 2007) between 15:30 and 16:30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11 o'clock. (04-Processos, volume IV . Pgs. 870 to 873). She says nothing about any of the trips having been delayed or cancelled.

Which means the McCanns, having decided to take their children to the beach that afternoon for a change, delivered Madeleine back to an empty creche for the last hour and a half (commencing 3.45 p.m. approx.). Cat Baker will have left at least fifteen minutes earlier - for the beach. And the beach being no more than fifteen minutes walk away, the 'lobsters' should already have arrived on the sand before the McCanns had even set off for the creche. Did the two groups pass each other en route? Did the McCanns simply hand over the children there and then? 'Hi Cat! You can take over now. We'll just nip back and sign the registers an hour ago!'

Oh well. An account of the truth that contains only one lie can't be all bad can it? Unfortunately even one lie is one lie too many. And this one concerns a period of time over 48 hours before Madeleine is said to have been 'taken.' It's like having your car stolen on Wednesday and lying to police about where you drove to at the weekend.

There can be little doubt now that the McCanns have as many teeth in their respective mouths as Clarence Mitchell has in his.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Bunkered!

Post by Guest on 04.08.11 21:34

Another excellent observation from Dr Roberts - please come and join us if you're out there. Sorry, it's too obvious but I can't help saying that, if Madeleine was left in an empty creche, she would have coped, being accustomed to having no adult supervision!




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by lj on 04.08.11 21:59

Indeed a great piece again.

Madeleine might have been able to manage by herself, but she must have been bored out of her head: having no-one she has to take care for.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by Miraflores on 04.08.11 22:41

Jean wrote:Another excellent observation from Dr Roberts - please come and join us if you're out there. Sorry, it's too obvious but I can't help saying that, if Madeleine was left in an empty creche, she would have coped, being accustomed to having no adult supervision!



Indeed - and with no twins to look after she should have been delighted not to have the responsibility.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by ROSA on 04.08.11 23:37

ls sick kate a adult?i think its kate who is a tuppence and crys 18 hour a day

ROSA

Posts : 1189
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2011-04-19
Location : Lakemba Sydney Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by Daisy on 05.08.11 19:35

@ROSA wrote:ls sick kate a adult?i think its kate who is a tuppence and crys 18 hour a day

A 'tuppence' had a very different meaning when I was a small girl. It was the polite name given for a girls parts, my own daughters were brought using this term too. Perhaps Kate McCann had never heard of it in this context though? I imagine it's geographical spread is limited. That's the reason I find that quote most disturbing; especially in light of what she wrote on p129 of her book.

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by littlepixie on 05.08.11 22:15

I agree Daisy that a tuppence can refer to a little girls privates. " Giving someone your tuppence worth" where I come from means to shout back louder or have your say.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The value of old money

Post by Marian on 07.08.11 14:29

I can safely say that I have never heard of the word tuppence used in the context that Daisy and Little Pixie mention. It probably says a lot about my upbringing though that I don't remember hearing any words (rude or otherwise) for that part of female anatomy when I was growing up. If Kate is aware of its meaning (other than to shout louder than someone else) I find it very disturbing that she chooses to use such an expression.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by juliet on 07.08.11 22:41

Whatever meaning "tuppence" has for some people, it was beyond belief that the McCanns would think that their three year old child could be able to "give her tuppence-worth" to some vile paedophile who had stolen her from her family. Yet that's what they said.



They are such a weird pair.



They seemed to think Madeleine was about 16 - leaving her alone every night in charge of the twins....leaving the patio door unlocked so she could "come and find them" in the event of an emergency...describing her as "a little pal" rather than a tiny defenceless child...assuming she would rather be in a play group every day than with her parents.



And althout both McCanns have been asked frequently by TV interviewers to send a message to their daughter, neither seems able to connect with her at all.



There is something very very wrong with them.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by Dr_Evil on 07.08.11 22:52

To me "giving someone their tuppenceworth" means arguing your case,or as suggested shouting back. Never heard the other versions to be honest until now.

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by juliet on 07.08.11 23:15

It is also the strangest thing that people swallow the story about leaving all the children alone, every night of that holiday.

It just didn't happen.

Can you really believe that the Oldfields, for example, left their only child - a baby - all alone so they could swap scintillating banter every evening with the McCanns and co??

Or that the Tanner/O'Briens couldn't be bothered to stay in with their tiny girls, one of whom had been very ill and in hospital just before the holiday? (The same child who was reportedly vomiting on the Thursday night).

Dining at the same old restaurant all the time can't have been that thrilling. Yet we are supposed to believe these people so loved a Tapas evening they left their infant children to fend for themselves. Night after night after night.



It is simply against nature. Trying to say it's what "middle class" people do is ludicrous.

It is my certain belief that the "neglect" didn't happen - it is a cover up for something else, which must be something appalling.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by ROSA on 08.08.11 0:21

i agree juliet its a lie to say they were alone that is what the mccanns want the world to think
The UFO can abduct Maddie if there was no adults

ROSA

Posts : 1189
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2011-04-19
Location : Lakemba Sydney Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by Miraflores on 08.08.11 8:43


It is simply against nature. Trying to say it's what "middle class" people do is ludicrous.

Oh, so why did we arrange babysitting circles, take it in turns to go out, not go out, take the children with us?

Typical of the McCann's not to take any responsibility. I would have retained much more sympathy for them if they had ever said 'we were absolute fools, never leave small children' but they never do. (Or if they have done, I have missed it.)

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by PeterMac on 08.08.11 10:03

@juliet wrote:It is also the strangest thing that people swallow the story about leaving all the children alone, every night of that holiday.
It just didn't happen.
Can you really believe that the Oldfields, for example, left their only child - a baby - all alone so they could swap scintillating banter every evening with the McCanns and co?? Or that the Tanner/O'Briens couldn't be bothered to stay in with their tiny girls, one of whom had been very ill and in hospital just before the holiday? (The same child who was reportedly vomiting on the Thursday night).
Dining at the same old restaurant all the time can't have been that thrilling. Yet we are supposed to believe these people so loved a Tapas evening they left their infant children to fend for themselves. Night after night after night.
It is simply against nature. Trying to say it's what "middle class" people do is ludicrous.
It is my certain belief that the "neglect" didn't happen - it is a cover up for something else, which must be something appalling.
Your are absolutely right.
It is clearly untrue. It is very clearly a lie, and always has been.
A lie, moreover, which has not been started solely by the McCanns - as for example was the jemmied shutter - and simply acquiesced to by the rest.
The entire Tapas group were involved in this lie from the start.
Even without evidence it was beyond belief, for the reasons you gave above.

But to some extent it has suited people to concentrate on that lie, treat it as if it were fact, to see where that took us, and the PJ. This is a normal Police tactic, as we have discussed before.
The nonsense about the one toothbrush is similarly that. Nonsense.

Occam's razor can be a very helpful tool, enabling one to slice through all sorts of extraneous material and to reach the kernel of fact hidden within.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by juliet on 08.08.11 21:29

The Tapas Lie worked brilliantly in a way. So many people were outraged about the "neglect" that it became the focus for McCann criticism.

It meant that few were wondering how this mediocre couple were manipulating the facts from Day One. They appeared to have Sky news, British newspapers, diplomats, politicians, PR outfits and even civil servants in their pockets from the beginning.

I always think that many answers lie in the photographs they have produced.

I also think they have tricked people with the time scale of many of those photos.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by juliet on 09.08.11 23:06

Thanks Petermac for your comments.

I do get tired of people banging on about the McCann "neglect" when that seems exactly what they (McCanns) WANT to be the focus of public anger.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BUNKERED

Post by jd on 09.08.11 23:54

@juliet wrote:
.......They appeared to have Sky news, British newspapers, diplomats, politicians, PR outfits and even civil servants in their pockets from the beginning.

The only way for this to happen and at this speed, is people at the resort already having the established relationships. Its logical from the owners Ocean Club/Mark Warner?

I think Charlotte Pennington was a major involvement in the lie too




____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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