Re: Could Maddie be in the garden of Casa Liliana?

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 12:08

If I am wrong, then why are the Mc Cann's + Amaral +the Portuguese authorities+Murat refusing to dig.

300 articles wriiten about my find worldwide...........!!!!!

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 12:09

Will do

by Guest 17.10.12 12:09

candyfloss wrote:I think perhaps the best thing would be is for you Mr Birch to stop this, and come back when you have actual confirmation there is going to be a dig. We are going round in circles here. Some members want you here and discuss, others don't. It is causing disruption with people disagreeing as to whether you should be here or not.

So I suggest that is what you do. Only post when you can inform us of a dig, or if there is going to be any relevant info in the press.

by Woofer 17.10.12 12:09

This discussion is really highlighting the fixed thinking of some posters, as if they`ve decided exactly what happened so are being thoroughly offensive to someone that puts forward other ideas. This is really troubling and as bad as the pros. I thought this forum was about the complete mystery of Madeleine Mccann, not a one sided vendetta against anyone that suggests something that might put a spanner in their fixed thinking. Some posters have been far far more offensive to SB than he has ever been.

My thinking has always veered on the side of TB and GA and I`ve supported them throughout, but it doesn`t mean that I am not open to new information and might have been misguided in the past. Its a real shame that people are not open to new information, whatever that may suggest. Are we searching for truth or not?

Please lets try and discuss this subject without descending into rudeness.

by **tigger** 17.10.12 12:11

ShuBob wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, SB has gotten away with a whole lot more than other posters who've been shown the door. Where is the line drawn?

Hear, hear! roses

by Liz Eagles 17.10.12 12:13

tigger wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, SB has gotten away with a whole lot more than other posters who've been shown the door. Where is the line drawn?

Hear, hear! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I second that.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.10.12 12:25

Woofer wrote:This discussion is really highlighting the fixed thinking of some posters, as if they`ve decided exactly what happened so are being thoroughly offensive to someone that puts forward other ideas. This is really troubling and as bad as the pros. I thought this forum was about the complete mystery of Madeleine Mccann, not a one sided vendetta against anyone that suggests something that might put a spanner in their fixed thinking. Some posters have been far far more offensive to SB than he has ever been.

My thinking has always veered on the side of TB and GA and I`ve supported them throughout, but it doesn`t mean that I am not open to new information and might have been misguided in the past. Its a real shame that people are not open to new information, whatever that may suggest. Are we searching for truth or not?

Please lets try and discuss this subject without descending into rudeness.

Clearly there is a division of opinion about the validity of this thread.

I have just looked back at one of Stephen Birch's posts and he said: "You see what members of this forum and the public sometimes heavily engrossed in facts, forget, is we dealing with a little 3 year old girl here. So it became a spiritual journey for me..."

Of course, he is right. What we forget, says Mr Birch, is that we are dealing with a little 3 year old girl. He has spoken forth the truth with power.

But let us not forget also that Mr Birch is on a 'spiritual journey'. Of course he should stay here and ~~spout his rubbish~~ give us the benefit of his opinions. Far be it form me to interfere with his 'spiritual jouney'...

by bristow 17.10.12 12:28

Woofer wrote:This discussion is really highlighting the fixed thinking of some posters, as if they`ve decided exactly what happened so are being thoroughly offensive to someone that puts forward other ideas. This is really troubling and as bad as the pros. I thought this forum was about the complete mystery of Madeleine Mccann, not a one sided vendetta against anyone that suggests something that might put a spanner in their fixed thinking. Some posters have been far far more offensive to SB than he has ever been.

My thinking has always veered on the side of TB and GA and I`ve supported them throughout, but it doesn`t mean that I am not open to new information and might have been misguided in the past. Its a real shame that people are not open to new information, whatever that may suggest. Are we searching for truth or not?

Please lets try and discuss this subject without descending into rudeness.

I agree Woofer.

Stephen Birch irritates me massively with a lot of his postings and his down right refusual to acknowledge many questions that are asked of him but I do agree that other new information shouldn't be disregarded, some of it does seem outlandish but some of it doesn't
No one knows for sure how it all happened but at least we all agree that there was no abduction and the sniffer dogs are correct.

I think there would be no harm in a dig. Plus if I were Murat, his mother and the McCanns I would be crying out for a dig.

Murat and his mother surely wouldn't being able to rest easy with the thought of a possible body buried in the garden and the McCanns well, if that were my child missing I would be there at first light digging myself.

Stephen Birch could be talking total Bulls**t but on the other hand, who really knows?

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 12:29

Mr Bennett wait for the dig.....

by Woofer 17.10.12 12:34

Tony Bennett wrote: Far be it form me to interfere with his 'spiritual jouney'...

That`s ok then, but you`re sounding a bit cynical as if you don`t give SB credit for being on a spiritual journey.

by Woofer 17.10.12 12:41

bristow wrote:
Woofer wrote:This discussion is really highlighting the fixed thinking of some posters, as if they`ve decided exactly what happened so are being thoroughly offensive to someone that puts forward other ideas. This is really troubling and as bad as the pros. I thought this forum was about the complete mystery of Madeleine Mccann, not a one sided vendetta against anyone that suggests something that might put a spanner in their fixed thinking. Some posters have been far far more offensive to SB than he has ever been.

My thinking has always veered on the side of TB and GA and I`ve supported them throughout, but it doesn`t mean that I am not open to new information and might have been misguided in the past. Its a real shame that people are not open to new information, whatever that may suggest. Are we searching for truth or not?

Please lets try and discuss this subject without descending into rudeness.

I agree Woofer.

Stephen Birch irritates me massively with a lot of his postings and his down right refusual to acknowledge many questions that are asked of him but I do agree that other new information shouldn't be disregarded, some of it does seem outlandish but some of it doesn't
No one knows for sure how it all happened but at least we all agree that there was no abduction and the sniffer dogs are correct.

I think there would be no harm in a dig. Plus if I were Murat, his mother and the McCanns I would be crying out for a dig.

Murat and his mother surely wouldn't being able to rest easy with the thought of a possible body buried in the garden and the McCanns well, if that were my child missing I would be there at first light digging myself.

Stephen Birch could be talking total Bulls**t but on the other hand, who really knows?

Bristow, yes, agreed. But he doesn`t irritate me quite so much because its obvious there are certain things he cannot answer. But who knows, I maybe just a naive fool, but what I do know is its extremely foolish to think we have all the answers.

by Liz Eagles 17.10.12 12:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:This discussion is really highlighting the fixed thinking of some posters, as if they`ve decided exactly what happened so are being thoroughly offensive to someone that puts forward other ideas. This is really troubling and as bad as the pros. I thought this forum was about the complete mystery of Madeleine Mccann, not a one sided vendetta against anyone that suggests something that might put a spanner in their fixed thinking. Some posters have been far far more offensive to SB than he has ever been.

My thinking has always veered on the side of TB and GA and I`ve supported them throughout, but it doesn`t mean that I am not open to new information and might have been misguided in the past. Its a real shame that people are not open to new information, whatever that may suggest. Are we searching for truth or not?

Please lets try and discuss this subject without descending into rudeness.
Clearly there is a division of opinion about the validity of this thread.

I have just looked back at one of Stephen Birch's posts and he said: "You see what members of this forum and the public sometimes heavily engrossed in facts, forget, is we dealing with a little 3 year old girl here. So it became a spiritual journey for me..."

Of course, he is right. What we forget, says Mr Birch, is that we are dealing with a little 3 year old girl. He has spoken forth the truth with power.

But let us not forget also that Mr Birch is on a 'spiritual journey'. Of course he should stay here and ~~spout his rubbish~~ give us the benefit of his opinions. Far be it form me to interfere with his 'spiritual jouney'...

and don't forget he has not failed to mention his financial input, sleepless nights, obsession etc and even though it has now become a spiritual journey for him he's not averse to financial reward. I was told to take a hike as I haven't run a billion rand? or is it pounds? project. Mr B. is assuming I haven't (the conversion rate makes all the difference).

We ARE dealing with the disappearance of a 3 year old girl called Madeleine. There is no doubt in my mind that this forum is devoted to that which is the whole purpose of the forum.

I object (and shoot me down if you like) to the forum being saturated by someone so zealous as to virtually wipe out any meaningful discussion. Just take a good look at what is the main focus of the forum right now. It's SB!!! I may not be clever but I know what sabotage tactics are. Woofer, we all have opinions but if you look at SB's postings it is only his that matter. So, sorry I don't believe one iota of his posts. I too am allowed my opinon.

by sami 17.10.12 12:43

Any relatively new poster here writing allegations, such as have been made about Amaral would be reprimanded very quickly, with or without a theory on radars or anything else.

Notwithstanding that, Mr Birch, imo, provides little information, asks many questions and is happy to "plead the 5th" when it suits. Now, I can understand if he wishes to claim his information must remain confidential until a certain point in time, however making unfounded allegations and being unable to back them up for whatever reason is unfair and serves no purpose. This is a discussion forum but it is impossible to have a discussion with somebody who will only make one line statements or refuse to comment at all on specific questions asked.

As far as I can see, Mr Birch has made the points he came on yesterday to make and will not progress any further with discussion, until such time as he wishes to make another humdinger of a statement.

If and when there is progress to report I am sure we would all welcome the opportunity to consider the information and comment. As it stands now, what exactly is there left to comment on.

by Guest 17.10.12 12:47

Posters post on the thread because they want to. No-one forces you to. There are countless other threads you can post on. You can post your disagreement and then move on to another thread and perhaps divert attention there, and leave those that want to participate in that thread to do so.

Woofer wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Far be it form me to interfere with his 'spiritual jouney'...

That`s ok then, but you`re sounding a bit cynical as if you don`t give SB credit for being on a spiritual journey.

Blimey, this forum would have no posters if I censored opinion on different theories on this case and differing opinions. There are many posts I don't agree with but they are not censored. What I do have a problem with is any slurs on Mr Amaral and them being stated as fact. We have the post to prove this. That will not be allowed Mr Birch, if there is proof in the files, or anywhere else and you have a link then that is a different matter. You may have your opinion on this, but please say it is your opinion. People here and that includes Tony advocate free speech, and as long as it follows the 3 rules of this forum imo it should be allowed. You can always ignore a thread totally, not even read or post, and discuss other things as my post above.

by ShuBob 17.10.12 12:51

Woofer wrote:[...]
Bristow, yes, agreed. But he doesn`t irritate me quite so much because its obvious there are certain things he cannot answer. But who knows, I maybe just a naive fool, but what I do know is its extremely foolish to think we have all the answers.

Do you think it's ok for him to allege Amaral planted DNA on items associated with the McCanns and was actively involved in the beating of Leonor Cipriano despite all the court cases?

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 12:53

noted

by aiyoyo 17.10.12 12:54

[quote="Stephen Birch"]If I am wrong, then why are the Mc Cann's + Amaral +the Portuguese authorities+Murat refusing to dig.

The answer is dead simple: They all recognise a case of IQs deformity (no offense soz

) when they see one!

450mm !! :please: 17.72 inches (yes equivalent of 450mm) is a shallow grave even by rat standard !! duh

As if that is not daft enough, you libeled the PJ by coming up with planted DNA (in the form of cadaverine?), something impossible to get hold of by any stretch of the imagination.

Pig will fly first before your *dig*.

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 12:58

Aiyoyo stand close to the diggers, when they dig, and watch the ground

by Liz Eagles 17.10.12 13:01

Stephen Birch wrote:Will do

Candyfloss, he's still posting. I guess you're request and his agreement didn't count.

by Guest 17.10.12 13:03

Stephen Birch wrote:Aiyoyo stand close to the diggers, when they dig, and watch the ground

I think that is now about enough really on this, when you have firm evidence of a dig then please post it, or any news that is relative and you have proof, otherwise I think it best to leave it now, you have made your opinions known, others want to here more, some don't. As I said, let's leave it now.

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 13:29

From:
Isabel Martorell

Sent:
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:54 AM

To:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Subject:
RE: Madeleine McCann

Dear Mr Lohr

I refer to your enquiry below.

Mr and Mrs McCann are guided by the
expertise of the British and Portuguese Police, both of which have studied the
information provided by Mr Birch and both of which have concluded it is not
credible.

Yours sincerely

Isabel Martorell

Isabel Martorell (née Hudson)
Partner, Carter-Ruck
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Carter-Ruck Solicitors
6 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AE
T 020 7353 5005
F 020 7353 5553
DX 333 Chancery Lane
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One of the UK's best-known law firms,
Carter-Ruck has a longstanding reputation for its expertise in the field of
litigation and dispute resolution.
Home Page
| Media
Law | International Law | Commercial Litigation | Financial Misselling

CarbonNeutral® Awarded November 2010.
Think of the environment. Do you need to print this email?

by AskTheDogsSandra 17.10.12 13:36

392 users online, presumably interested in what Mr Birch has to say?

by Guest 17.10.12 13:41

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:392 users online, presumably interested in what Mr Birch has to say?

Yes, surely that can only be good to get as many visitors as possible reading this forum, I'm sure they will look at other threads as well[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Stephen Birch 17.10.12 13:47

To The Forum

I want the same thing as members of this Forum.

1. One, I want to recover the remains of Madeleine Mc Cann.
2. Two, I want the entire mystery to be revealed to the world.
3. Three, I want people/ persons responsible , to be exposed and be held accountable for their illegal actions relating to this this case. Including people instrumental in the cover-up.
4. Four, I want to be able to put flowers on the grave of Madeleine Mc Cann, in England.

Yours sincerely

Stephen D.Birch

by Woofer 17.10.12 13:51

ShuBob wrote:
Woofer wrote:[...]
Bristow, yes, agreed. But he doesn`t irritate me quite so much because its obvious there are certain things he cannot answer. But who knows, I maybe just a naive fool, but what I do know is its extremely foolish to think we have all the answers.

Do you think it's ok for him to allege Amaral planted DNA on items associated with the McCanns and was actively involved in the beating of Leonor Cipriano despite all the court cases?

Obviously not ShuBob but I believe he did rectify that to GA merely `knowing` about those things. I do agree that he should not spout off things as fact - we have all been warned to make sure we add IMO. I`m tending now to think that he has been duped by propoganda coming from the Marcos Correia camp. For all his faults, I just don`t think he`s the type of person to be cunning enough to be involved in a set-up - but as I`ve said, I am naive sometimes. My radar is only any good at spotting negative intentions in people, not positive, albeit misguided ones.