Re: 19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express

by Peneda Geres 20.05.13 21:57

loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10066084/Julian-Assange-vigil-costs-taxpayers-4million.html

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

I'm not being pedantic, I am merely pointing out 195 leads does not equate to 20 or whatever suspects: 20 suspects may give "X" amount of leads.

by plebgate 20.05.13 22:01

I would also like to have a detailed account of exactly how the taxpayers' money has been spent and nothing has come of it thus far.

The detectives would be getting paid anyway, yes I agree but how many have been back and forth to Portugal, what accommodation and how much did it cost, how much have they claimed on expenses etc. etc. If they had been working on a case in Britain none of these additional expenses would have been incurred.

To spend this much over 2 years and at the end of if be told that Maddie could be alive, that there are x number of persons of interest and that the police were incredulous(something like that) to learn that a couple had gone into soothe Maddie is unbelievable imo.

How long will the SY review last and what will the final total be, who knows, but we should be told.

by plebgate 20.05.13 22:04

and what happened to the urgent explanation that kitten heels May was reportedly going to give a few weeks back?

The whole of this seems to be a pile of dung and serious explanations need to be given to the British taxpayer. IMO they are taking the proverbial big time.

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 22:05

Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10066084/Julian-Assange-vigil-costs-taxpayers-4million.html

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

I'm not being pedantic, I am merely pointing out 195 leads does not equate to 20 or whatever suspects: 20 suspects may give "X" amount of leads.

I don't believe I wrote that 195 leads equated to 20 suspects.
As you are aware last year Scotland Yard stated that it had 195 new leads.
It is clear that Scotland Yard has worked its way through all these leads as it is now confident to change the terminology to report that, depending on where you read:

Scotland Yard identify 20 new suspects in hunt for Madeleine McCann
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326108/Madeleine-McCann-Possibility-Maddie-alive-Scotland-Yard-identify-20-new-suspects.html

SCOTLAND YARD has identified 12 new people of interest as part of its review into the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/madeleine-mccann/53132/madeleine-mccann-scotland-yard-identify-12-new-leads#ixzz2Trw410CQ

Madeleine McCann hope as Scotland Yard identify ‘handful’ of suspects
http://fr.covertimes.com/news/daily-express-uk_2013-05-18/madeleine-mccann-hope-as-scotland-yard-identify-handful-of-suspects/344916

Either way, what this evidences is a lot of hard work and a decline in the attentions of Scotland Yard over a wider area, leaving them with more resources to focus on a smaller amount of people.

May I also remind you, that 'leads', 'suspects' or 'people of interest' are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, you are engaged in pedantry of the highest order.

by Peneda Geres 20.05.13 22:15

loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10066084/Julian-Assange-vigil-costs-taxpayers-4million.html

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

I'm not being pedantic, I am merely pointing out 195 leads does not equate to 20 or whatever suspects: 20 suspects may give "X" amount of leads.

I don't believe I wrote that 195 leads equated to 20 suspects.
As you are aware last year Scotland Yard stated that it had 195 new leads.
It is clear that Scotland Yard has worked its way through all these leads as it is now confident to change the terminology to report that, depending on where you read:

Scotland Yard identify 20 new suspects in hunt for Madeleine McCann
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326108/Madeleine-McCann-Possibility-Maddie-alive-Scotland-Yard-identify-20-new-suspects.html

SCOTLAND YARD has identified 12 new people of interest as part of its review into the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/madeleine-mccann/53132/madeleine-mccann-scotland-yard-identify-12-new-leads#ixzz2Trw410CQ

Madeleine McCann hope as Scotland Yard identify ‘handful’ of suspects
http://fr.covertimes.com/news/daily-express-uk_2013-05-18/madeleine-mccann-hope-as-scotland-yard-identify-handful-of-suspects/344916

Either way, what this evidences is a lot of hard work and a decline in the attentions of Scotland Yard over a wider area, leaving them with more resources to focus on a smaller amount of people.

May I also remind you, that 'leads', 'suspects' or 'people of interest' are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, you are engaged in pedantry of the highest order.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also,
that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects,
not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job
well done!

Call me pedantic if you wish, i would call you non prehensile.

by **PeterMac** 20.05.13 22:15

BORING !

by Beanie 20.05.13 22:18

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Woofer wrote:Or it reinforces the idea that Maddie was alive on the 2nd.

These 6 people in the white van - could they have been hired to do a `deep clean`? Cash in hand and a bit extra for their silence.

deleted, no accusations please naming people

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 22:25

the point is Scotland Yard have identified new areas of investigation which the Mccann's should see as 'encouraging' as it leaves the door open for the 'they' that Kate claims 'took her'.
However, for this new evidence to 'fit', it requires the Mccann's to help the police with re-evaluating the timeline.
Moreover, as Petermac pointed out earlier - in theory one person walked by the apartment every 5 minutes.
Yet nobody else heard crying, which is a second attack on the timeline.

spin

by Peneda Geres 20.05.13 23:14

loopzdaloop wrote:the point is Scotland Yard have identified new areas of investigation which the Mccann's should see as 'encouraging' as it leaves the door open for the 'they' that Kate claims 'took her'.
However, for this new evidence to 'fit', it requires the Mccann's to help the police with re-evaluating the timeline.
Moreover, as Petermac pointed out earlier - in theory one person walked by the apartment every 5 minutes.
Yet nobody else heard crying, which is a second attack on the timeline.

It matters not what you or Peter Mac think, three children left alone in a strange unlocked apartment is abuse, like it or not .

by Guest 20.05.13 23:37

Hobs have sent you a pm.

by **Hobs** 21.05.13 2:20

This is bad news for the mccanns.
I also wonder why this has just come
out.

Let's think about this.

Maddie allegedly asked why they
didn't come when she and Sean cried, you may remember my previous posts
regarding who was where and doing what when kate said she thought it was
when they were being bathed etc.

Now, we are being told a middle-aged
couple apparently went in and soothed her, so, who witnessed this happening, and
why didn't Maddie say someone else comforted her and Sean unless the YOU refers
to kate rather than the mystery couple.

If this mystery couple did go
in and was known to Maddie and siblings why the use of YOU and not aunty/uncle
or however they knew the couple as.

Could this explain the reference to a
trial run the night before?

Why would an abductor do a trial run when he
is in the room with his target?
Why not grab the child and run rather than risk
her talking to her parents and the parents then being responsible for once and
either leaving them in the evening creche, hiring a babysitter or one staying in
the room whilst the other eats and then swapping over.

It also completely
ruins their claims of it felt so safe etc if an alleged mystery couple can walk
in off the street to comfort crying children, it negates any of their claimed
checks.

If this mystery couple heard the crying and entered the apartment to soothe a crying child where are their fingerprints, the evidence they entered the apartment, perhaps the smell of perfume or aftershave lingering in the air.

It also buggers up the story of one of the tapas 7 in the
apartment next door saying she heard no crying , no sound, nonothing from the mccanns
apt, yet a mystery couple walking along minding their own business can hear a
crying child and feel compelled to check.

What is not said is why this
alleged couple felt the need to check on the child in the first place given the
assumption the parents or a responsible adult would be in the apartment rather
than the unexpected children left home alone.

Is it because of they type
of crying ? are we talking screaming and pleading or what here?
Is it because
the crying went on for a long time which aroused the interest of said
couple?

Why are the mccanns so intent on moving the crying heard by Mrs
Fenn may 1st to may 2nd?

If this mystery couple do exist why have they
not come forward?

Have this couple been interviewed by the PJ and their
statements are in the unreleased files thus the mccanns are desperate to know
who and what and when?

If the couple are part of the tapas 7 why are they
being called a mystery couple?

Why is this breaking news unless it is to
distract from the libel trial against Goncalo Amaral?

They offered to
come to a deal with him that would be acceptable to him which he refused.
I
would think that part of his demands included a full front page public apology,
something they refused to do since it would validate his version of events
including the death of Maddie and put the Kibbosh on donations to the
fund.

Is this why kate went to Portugal? to sign papers and see what
was what in regard to the case?
Why no gerry?
Are the rumors true they
have separated?
if so is it going to be every man for himself?
First to
talk wins the prize?

We see news that a handful or so of people need to
be REINVESTIGATED.
This tells me these people have been questioned before so
is this the mccanns and the tapas 7?
We hear that stories
don't match timelines, forensics and of course those blasted phone calls and
texts.

There is mention of 6 cleaners and a white van, again this stinks of clarrie, a gang of 6 driving around in a white van is going to stick
out like a sore thumb is a small town at the beginning of the holiday
season.

With the New AG in place will the phone records, financial
statements all be allowed to be investigated?

What will they all do if SY
say OK you need to go to PDL and do a police reconstruction, you need to do
statements ( and haul them all in at the same time and in different stations and
rooms so they cannot corroborate or change their version)
What will kate
do if SY say you need to answer these 48 questions plus anything else we can
think of, you will be questioned under caution.

Given their claims they
want the case reopened will they do as required or will they hide behind their
lawyers, in which case bang goes their claims of wanting the case reopened and
their support.

Even their supporters must ask themselves why are they not
co-operating despite telling us they would?

The mccanns are trapped in
a corner of their own making, if they co-operate the deception is revealed for
all to see regarding timelines ~cue Benny Hill chase music~ and the case gets reopened due to new and compelling evidence ( the
questions and reconstruction proving no abduction)

If they refuse then
the game is up, innocent people act one way, guilty people act another way, they
are mutually exclusive.

Will the tapas 7 spill the beans given they
are interviewed under caution and can face severe jail time for obstruction of
justice, perjury, filing false police reports and perhaps murder or manslaughter
after the fact?

Are they will to cop a deal in order to not do time, or
to keep their medical license?

What is the bond that ties them all
togeather?

Payne and the allegations of paedophilia from both the Drs Gaspar, the social worker who recognised him and Mrs Amaral are one possible tie, why the deafening silence
when you are accused of the worst thing you can call a male?
The allegations he likes to bathe little children both his own and other parents do not bode well.

By not answering we have an answer.

Do the wives
know of or suspect the sexual proclivities of their menfolk and allow it?

I think a
lot is going to come out soon, the stress is building, friendships change of the
years as do loyalties.

Will they protect their own butts or protect the mccanns ?

We only hear from the mccanns when they have a need to either demand donations or to distract from a breaking story that does not show them in a good light.

If strangers entered the apartment then their claims of regular checks are blown out the water, if the couple are 2 of the tapas 7 why has it not been mentioned in the files or the bewk?
They cannot claim they didn't know since if it were tapas 7 members they would have mentioned it in the rogs or to the mccanns when they saw them next.

by aiyoyo 21.05.13 4:04

What ever happened to 195 fresh leads that Redwood told us were important, and that Maddie may be alive or sadly dead.

Campbell did not say whether MET followed up the 195 fresh leads or not.
Instead, he said a handful of suspects need further investigation; and that Maddie may still be alive citing the Cleveland's case as example of 'alive' captive prey.

The MET public proclamations thus far give the impression as if Redwood and Campbell each was doing their own things and not working in tandem. Either that, or one of them was bullshitting the Public. They both cant be right.

by cass7 21.05.13 8:15

re the cleaning - wouldnt there have been samples taken -wouldnt the types of cleaning fluid use in all appartments be the same -- wonder what deep cleaning fluids have been found - i mean no dna fingerprints in appartment with 3 little ones and 2 adults -- sometimes its not what you find its whats missing they might question

by **tigger** 21.05.13 9:01

In the DM comments today as predicted!

- the kind of reactions one may expect from the public on reading about this caring couple: (DM)

Please find her safe and well with a family who were so desperate for a child to LOVE that they took her. I cannot think about any other reason for someone taking her as its heart breaking.. I cannot start to comprehend what her family is going through. Please be safe Madeleine. you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.

xIt would be sooooo good it this little girl was found alive and well, but lets be honest, would it really be good to think about 'what she might have gone through' all these years. Best case scenario if she she alive is that a childless couple fell in love with the beautiful little girl and have given her a loving home.

The whole purpose of this ridiculous story in the first place imo. spin

by Liz Eagles 21.05.13 9:04

I'm colouring my hair today (those darned roots). It comes in a box with hydrogen peroxide and rubber gloves.

by Curioser 21.05.13 9:06

Lance De Boils wrote:MJC, I've read all this differently to you.

The witnesses on the balcony (poss. Moyes) were talking about the night of 3rd. They apparently walked past 5A on the way back to their apt and were standing on the balcony at the exact same time that Gerry was supposed to have been standing below talking with Jes - exactly the same time that Tanner says she walked past them and saw bundle-man. These witnesses throw a very large spanner in the works as they are sure there was nobody in the street below.

SEPERATELY, there are apparently witnesses who claim that the NIGHT BEFORE, a "middle-aged couple" went into 5A to comfort a crying Maddie.

I think, from my reading of these reports, these are two different events.

I agree. This is classic spin theory isn't it? If, god forbid, a useful piece of information hits the news you muddy the water by adding additional fabricated rubbish to confuse the issue. It seems to have been the tactic all along.

by suzyjohnson 21.05.13 9:27

Regarding this topic I would just like to say that it appears that MM cried loudly every night when her parents went out (as children do actually). Mrs Fenn heard her crying for over an hour, now apparently a middle aged couple went in to soothe her (presumably she was standing crying by the patio door?), Madeleine herself asked her parents why they hadn't come when she, and Shaun, cried. Also, weren't some Mark Warner staff sent down to another bar at one point to ask the parents to return? GM said at one point that he thought Madeleine may have gone into their room to avoid the noise of the other two crying. (Also, at home, Madeleine had a star chart where she got a star for every time she did not get out of bed in the night). Does anyone know of any more?

In other words it seems MM was not a very good sleeper and that the McCann's caused inconvenience for others throughout the holiday by not looking after their children. Yet we are supposed to believe that on May 3rd all three children slept soundly from, say, 8.15pm onwards, and that Madeleine was so soundly asleep (on this one occasion) that she didn't not even wake when someone picked her up and carried her away?

by Lance De Boils 21.05.13 9:50

Of course, if a couple went to "soothe" Maddie on 2nd May, that would prove that Madeleine was still alive (and well?) then, which would put paid to any theories of her "disappearing" (or meeting her demise, as some have suggested) at an earlier time. Hmmm....
19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express - Page 26 1135810427

19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express - Page 26 1135810427

by russiandoll 21.05.13 9:59

from Mrs Fenn's statement :

She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home
alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the
tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two
years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for
approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and
more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no
doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour
and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents
arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she
was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and
had gradually got worse.

When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.
As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.
That
night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia
da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, who was not
surprised at the childs crying.
She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night.

Am I reading this correctly, that Mrs Fenn being home " at night " means she was out for the evening so could not tell police about any crying while McCanns were at dinner, having returned late evening, " night" time ?
As she has been previously describing crying after dark, I find it difficult to interpret this part of her statement as meaning " I can't tell you about the Wednesday because I was out during the day"...[ she had not been focusing her memory on daytime is what I mean]

If she was out for the day returning for the evening, [ tapas mealtime] then she is saying she WAS at home but no crying like evening before.

Ah well, confusion is good!

by suzyjohnson 21.05.13 10:23

russiandoll, I think she just means she was out until later on the 2nd ............ which of course does mean that Madeleine may well have been crying all evening on the 2nd as well as the 1st

by jozi 21.05.13 10:46

Lance De Boils wrote:Of course, if a couple went to "soothe" Maddie on 2nd May, that would prove that Madeleine was still alive (and well?) then, which would put paid to any theories of her "disappearing" (or meeting her demise, as some have suggested) at an earlier time. Hmmm....

Aso the tea stain on Maddies pajama top that Kate washed and didn't know how it got there,so the mysterious couple soothed her by making a cup of tea.....bwaaah !!!

by plebgate 21.05.13 10:51

Another poster said earlier in the thread, what a strange word to use soothe, why not to comfort. I think soothe is a strange word to use also.

Are these headlines sending out coded messages I wonder????

Bring them all back to Portugal was the other headline - maybe a coded message letting someone know what the police might be planning?????

by plebgate 21.05.13 11:00

ShuBob wrote:Even if Maddie is found today, the McCanns and their friends still need to give a coherent version of events to support the prosecution case (assuming she was abducted).

Meant to quote this yesterday.

Exactly 19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express - Page 26 636506

19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express - Page 26 636506

by appleblossom 21.05.13 11:13

plebgate wrote:Another poster said earlier in the thread, what a strange word to use soothe, why not to comfort. I think soothe is a strange word to use also.

Are these headlines sending out coded messages I wonder????

Bring them all back to Portugal was the other headline - maybe a coded message letting someone know what the police might be planning?????

Long time lurker here and member of previous forums.
I feel a message is being sent out. I haven't given too much thought to the newspaper articles BUT the thing that has gotten me bothered is the Hamish Campbell interview.
It wasn't an official Scotland Yard statement, so was it endorsed by SY to send out a message? It would explain why they chose a cop retiring the next day.
If it wasn't endorsed by SY was HC trying to send out a message. He had nothing to lose because he was going the next day.
Or
Was it the twitterings of a retiring cop who wanted to go out on a high.
Or
Am I over thinking it all big grin

But there is something that doesn't sit comfortable with me about that interview.

by plebgate 21.05.13 11:24

Hello AB,

Not over thinking imo as I was thinking along those lines only this morning about the HC interview not being an official SY statement. 19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express - Page 26 847771

19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express - Page 26 847771

Log in for more topics