The Burgau Apartment may have been for Official Agency Photoshoots

by Angelique 29.07.14 11:37

I am not sure whether there is another thread specific to this thought that I have had.

I was reading on the Phone thread about the time Madeleine was removed from the creche after 15 minutes. As far as I recall we don't know where she went on that afternoon. It just suddenly occurred to me that if this was, in fact, where Madeleine went that afternoon. Is this what Gerry meant when he said "he wasn't here to enjoy himself". It was a pre-arranged appointment which they incorporated into their holiday. Was it a Model Agency for Children.

You hear about this sort of thing where what seems to be a perfectly acceptable Agency but it turns into something else.

But if the Burgau Apartment was for legitimate Agency Photoshoots this would explain the make up and jewelry and strange poses and it would be all totally acceptable to the McCanns. Maybe it didn't occur to the McCanns and that they were odd poses as it was for a Portfolio of photographs to get modeling work.

It may sound as though I am just repeating what others have suggested but in "a different type of scenario setting" it may have been that G and K thought this was what it was, a totally innocent photoshoot. It was only after that Madeleine was targeted by someone connected to the Agency.

Getting into "pro territory" here but then I have never thought that Gerry or Kate were responsible for what happened - just that they had to deal with the aftermath.

by Guest 29.07.14 12:13

I would find dressing a four year old up in bright blue make up and the odd poses with ice creams and pearl necklaces a bit strange to be honest Angelique - even if it was for a legitimate photo shoot. And these things do have another meaning to those who frequent darker worlds. IMO it just doesn't stack up as innocent. I just cannot comprehend anyone agreeing to a four year old being photographed like that. Even less releasing the photographs under the circumstances.

Interesting what you say about something going wrong and the Mccanns having to deal with the aftermath - I think that is perfectly possible, but I don't think they were walking into anything that was innocent.

But I think you are right that Burgau is highly significant - there are just so many connections and people that are clustered around there.
IMO I don't think you are far from the truth at all but I don't see anything innocent in it all all unfortunately.

There is a really good thread on Burgau here for any newbies who hasn't seen it:-

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

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact

by Angelique 29.07.14 12:25

BlackCatBoogie

Yes I know about the oddity of clothes, poses and make-up. It is odd but maybe, just maybe they were not present when these photos were taken.

I agree about releasing the photos it is not something any decent parent would want to do. IMO the photos are unacceptable and I would not approve of any of them. Some people have suggested that they were released to send messages or to warn people.

But by the time they did surface perhaps the Fund was allowing them to experience the finer things in life and they had become accustomed to it. Releasing photos generates cash. Its a slippery slope when money comes into ones hands without much control.

But thank you for your thoughts.

by Smokeandmirrors 29.07.14 16:51

IMHO, there may well have been a scheduled photo session, but I would wager that the nature of it (given a variety of factors highlighted over the years) would not fall into the legal or decent category. IMO.

by Nina 29.07.14 18:07

Smokeandmirrors wrote:IMHO, there may well have been a scheduled photo session, but I would wager that the nature of it (given a variety of factors highlighted over the years) would not fall into the legal or decent category. IMO.

And would not have been on an apartment balcony in full view of other residents.

by Smokeandmirrors 29.07.14 19:16

Nina wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:IMHO, there may well have been a scheduled photo session, but I would wager that the nature of it (given a variety of factors highlighted over the years) would not fall into the legal or decent category. IMO.

And would not have been on an apartment balcony in full view of other residents.

Perhaps a balcony "lolita" picture was the least of it Sad

by Angelique 29.07.14 21:58

SmokeandMirrors and Nina

Yes I totally agree that these photos and location are wrong. But as we know especially the ice cream one, it is possible to photoshop. In fact, this particular one has at least an arm altered IMO.

What I was suggesting is was there some connection between what happened at the location where these photos were taken and how Gerry reacted on the bus. His comment when asked about Murat. Murat's comment made as regards something which went wrong.

Maybe it was supposed to be an official and legitimate photo shoot but it turned into something else.

This is the comment from Robert Murat:

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language."

Was this just because he was made an arguido or was it to do with when he flew in to Portugal. Sometimes things slip out when you answer simple questions – is this the case with Robert Murat.

The interview in PdL when Gerry speaking to the press:

Taking questions from the press, Gerry McCann is asked: "Did you know Robert Murat?" He replies: "I'm not going to comment on that".

It was just a feeling I had that these things are connected in some way to what happened to Madeleine.

by Woofer 29.07.14 22:36

Angelique - I`ve wondered about a similar scenario but IMO it can`t be innocent on their part otherwise there would be no need for lies and covering up. I don`t think their reputations would have suffered too badly if they had innocently given their daughter modelling opportunities. IMO it`s something more sinister in which people have each other by the short and curlies.

My scenario was condemned by some on here some time ago but I`ll risk suggesting it once more. IMO it could be that JG was involved pre the `***k up` (as RM so eloquently said). It could well be that JG had dirt on all of them including RM. RM`s part was to translate during the pre-planned scenario. Maybe it was just an innocent photo-session or maybe it was a lure to catch a gang, in which those that were `owned`by JG had to go along with. And it went wrong.

by Angelique 30.07.14 10:22

Woofer

Thank you for your reply. I do remember you presenting that scenario and I hope I have not strayed too far into your theory. Can you tell me the thread so I can read it again.

I know that you think that the photos cannot have been taken without the McCanns' knowledge and that they could not be innocent. But what if, say, a request for pictures of "an attractive child" were requested and somehow it led to Madeleine. They were on a planned holiday and so took up the opportunity. I still get this "niggle" that this is all tied in. But if you remove the "ice cream" photo the other photos do not absolutely look like "lure" pictures - do they? There on the edge admittedly but it is the "ice cream" one that plays into the sinister area. And that one was photoshopped IMO.

I have definitely dropped the idea that it was an accident.

If the "person or persons" were able to carry out what I now think happened to Madeleine would it suggest that they would be strong enough to have a hold over the McCanns?

by Guest 30.07.14 10:30

Woofer wrote:Angelique - I`ve wondered about a similar scenario but IMO it can`t be innocent on their part otherwise there would be no need for lies and covering up. I don`t think their reputations would have suffered too badly if they had innocently given their daughter modelling opportunities. IMO it`s something more sinister in which people have each other by the short and curlies.

My scenario was condemned by some on here some time ago but I`ll risk suggesting it once more. IMO it could be that JG was involved pre the `***k up` (as RM so eloquently said). It could well be that JG had dirt on all of them including RM. RM`s part was to translate during the pre-planned scenario. Maybe it was just an innocent photo-session or maybe it was a lure to catch a gang, in which those that were `owned`by JG had to go along with. And it went wrong.

@Woofer - I would also be very interested to read your theory. Did you start a new thread or I could look back over your posts - any idea when you posted it as you have a lot of posts!

by HelenMeg 30.07.14 10:33

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Woofer wrote:Angelique - I`ve wondered about a similar scenario but IMO it can`t be innocent on their part otherwise there would be no need for lies and covering up. I don`t think their reputations would have suffered too badly if they had innocently given their daughter modelling opportunities. IMO it`s something more sinister in which people have each other by the short and curlies.

My scenario was condemned by some on here some time ago but I`ll risk suggesting it once more. IMO it could be that JG was involved pre the `***k up` (as RM so eloquently said). It could well be that JG had dirt on all of them including RM. RM`s part was to translate during the pre-planned scenario. Maybe it was just an innocent photo-session or maybe it was a lure to catch a gang, in which those that were `owned`by JG had to go along with. And it went wrong.
@Woofer - I would also be very interested to read your theory. Did you start a new thread or I could look back over your posts - any idea when you posted it as you have a lot of posts!

Ive posted something similar on discrepancy thread. I think that JG manipulated RM to help out.

by Guest 30.07.14 10:39

HelenMeg wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Woofer wrote:Angelique - I`ve wondered about a similar scenario but IMO it can`t be innocent on their part otherwise there would be no need for lies and covering up. I don`t think their reputations would have suffered too badly if they had innocently given their daughter modelling opportunities. IMO it`s something more sinister in which people have each other by the short and curlies.

My scenario was condemned by some on here some time ago but I`ll risk suggesting it once more. IMO it could be that JG was involved pre the `***k up` (as RM so eloquently said). It could well be that JG had dirt on all of them including RM. RM`s part was to translate during the pre-planned scenario. Maybe it was just an innocent photo-session or maybe it was a lure to catch a gang, in which those that were `owned`by JG had to go along with. And it went wrong.
@Woofer - I would also be very interested to read your theory. Did you start a new thread or I could look back over your posts - any idea when you posted it as you have a lot of posts!
Ive posted something similar on discrepancy thread. I think that JG manipulated RM to help out.

Thanks HM - will take a look. I am sure there is a lot of blackmailing/manipulation behind this case but I have never worked out the precise relationships.

All imo.

by HelenMeg 30.07.14 10:41

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Woofer wrote:Angelique - I`ve wondered about a similar scenario but IMO it can`t be innocent on their part otherwise there would be no need for lies and covering up. I don`t think their reputations would have suffered too badly if they had innocently given their daughter modelling opportunities. IMO it`s something more sinister in which people have each other by the short and curlies.

My scenario was condemned by some on here some time ago but I`ll risk suggesting it once more. IMO it could be that JG was involved pre the `***k up` (as RM so eloquently said). It could well be that JG had dirt on all of them including RM. RM`s part was to translate during the pre-planned scenario. Maybe it was just an innocent photo-session or maybe it was a lure to catch a gang, in which those that were `owned`by JG had to go along with. And it went wrong.
@Woofer - I would also be very interested to read your theory. Did you start a new thread or I could look back over your posts - any idea when you posted it as you have a lot of posts!
Ive posted something similar on discrepancy thread. I think that JG manipulated RM to help out.
Thanks HM - will take a look. I am sure there is a lot of blackmailing/manipulation behind this case but I have never worked out the precise relationships.

All imo.

Me too - but I do think there was a lot of manipulation. One day - when there is a resolution to this case - it woul dbe good if we could all get together somewhere central - to have a 'leaving party' ! winkwink

by Guest 30.07.14 11:06

HelenMeg wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Woofer wrote:Angelique - I`ve wondered about a similar scenario but IMO it can`t be innocent on their part otherwise there would be no need for lies and covering up. I don`t think their reputations would have suffered too badly if they had innocently given their daughter modelling opportunities. IMO it`s something more sinister in which people have each other by the short and curlies.

My scenario was condemned by some on here some time ago but I`ll risk suggesting it once more. IMO it could be that JG was involved pre the `***k up` (as RM so eloquently said). It could well be that JG had dirt on all of them including RM. RM`s part was to translate during the pre-planned scenario. Maybe it was just an innocent photo-session or maybe it was a lure to catch a gang, in which those that were `owned`by JG had to go along with. And it went wrong.
@Woofer - I would also be very interested to read your theory. Did you start a new thread or I could look back over your posts - any idea when you posted it as you have a lot of posts!
Ive posted something similar on discrepancy thread. I think that JG manipulated RM to help out.
Thanks HM - will take a look. I am sure there is a lot of blackmailing/manipulation behind this case but I have never worked out the precise relationships.

All imo.
Me too - but I do think there was a lot of manipulation. One day - when there is a resolution to this case - it woul dbe good if we could all get together somewhere central - to have a 'leaving party' !

Yes an awful lot of manipulation and blackmail, but also government protection extending to the top as well so an almightly vipers nest. And IMO something went wrong for the Mccanns or they were played by the players thus the shambolic 'disposal' with cadaver odour all over the shop. I look forward to reading yours and Woofers theories as I really think these are extremely realistic.

Yeah I really look foward to a solution of this case, or even just what we believe being partially confirmed. A 'leaving party' would be a fantasic idea - esp to guess who we all are from our user names big grin

All IMO, nothing stated as fact

by Woofer 30.07.14 11:49

Angelique wrote:Woofer

Thank you for your reply. I do remember you presenting that scenario and I hope I have not strayed too far into your theory. Can you tell me the thread so I can read it again.

I know that you think that the photos cannot have been taken without the McCanns' knowledge and that they could not be innocent. But what if, say, a request for pictures of "an attractive child" were requested and somehow it led to Madeleine. They were on a planned holiday and so took up the opportunity. I still get this "niggle" that this is all tied in. But if you remove the "ice cream" photo the other photos do not absolutely look like "lure" pictures - do they? There on the edge admittedly but it is the "ice cream" one that plays into the sinister area. And that one was photoshopped IMO.

I have definitely dropped the idea that it was an accident.

If the "person or persons" were able to carry out what I now think happened to Madeleine would it suggest that they would be strong enough to have a hold over the McCanns?

Angelique and BlackCatBoogie - I will try and find where I posted it but it must have been last year or even the year before. It was only a theory - one of many I`ve had from time to time. I know I backed off because a poster got offended by the word `lure` and said it was a ridiculous thing to say and couldn`t possibly have happened.

Yes, someone must have a hold over the McCanns IMO and I wouldn`t be surprised if that `hold` was connected to Operation Ore. Remember thousands of people were on that list, professionals included and only a fraction of them were arrested. They were caught via their credit cards. Didn`t Tony Blair put a D notice on O.Ore - I`ve always wondered why. It is just something I`ve wondered about and purely a passing opinion, nothing more.

Who put the ice cream photo, the pearl necklace photo and the leaning back photo on the internet and why?

KM leaks things - was she confirming that she knew what happened to MBM when she wrote about her `perfect gen******`. All just passing thoughts and wonderings.

by Angelique 30.07.14 14:07

Woofer

Many thanks for your reply.

Don't worry if you can't find your comments on the thread as you say its a long time back. I get the gist anyway as long as I wasn't treading on your toes. I agree its difficult to pin down who is connected to the photos. But it must have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance otherwise, as you say, why have they appeared.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 19:42

Angelique wrote:Woofer

Many thanks for your reply.

Don't worry if you can't find your comments on the thread as you say its a long time back. I get the gist anyway as long as I wasn't treading on your toes. I agree its difficult to pin down who is connected to the photos. But it must have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance otherwise, as you say, why have they appeared.

I always thought the release of the highly unsuitable "Lolita" pictures to be something of a warning shot. Even Mark Williams-Thomas (or whatever his name is) commented that they were a bloody ridiculous choice of photo to release. It is like the Mc's were warning those in "the know" to watch their backs IMO

by secrets and lies 30.07.14 20:12

Very, very interesting.

Would also love to see the original posts with the theory.

My I ask who JG is? Cannot work that one out!

by missbeetle 30.07.14 20:18

secrets and lies wrote:Very, very interesting.

Would also love to see the original posts with the theory.

My I ask who JG is? Cannot work that one out!

I'll take a gamble that it is Jim, Jim Gamble.

Though I could be wrong...

by secrets and lies 30.07.14 20:21

Thank you, missbeetle.!

by Guest 30.07.14 20:23

secrets and lies wrote:Thank you, MissBeetle.!

John Geraghty, I believe:

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

by secrets and lies 30.07.14 20:36

And thank you too LadyInRed.

Just reading your link makes my hair stand on end. The plot gets thicker and thicker-to use that cliche.

A potentially truly poisonous web.

Over the weekend, at a social gathering, I had a very interesting conversation with a respected actor about the case. He told me, in no uncertain terms, he thought the McCanns were innocent. And gave me all his reasons why.

I directed him to this site. I hope he reads some of these posts.

It really does seem as if we are dealing with a situation far bigger than the tiny story the the papers/crimewatch etc, report on. The "abduction" debacle really seems to be the tip of a great big iceberg. Is this why there are SO many odd and intriguing coincidences that are there for all to see? They really are numerous and have been well documented. This is far more than "conspiracy theory".

And oddly, to leads me back to KM's alleged cry of "They've taken her", upon finding Madeleine "missing". WHAT did she mean? Had it something to do with the nice folks who might have organised this photosession? SO much to think about.

by canada12 30.07.14 20:43

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
I always thought the release of the highly unsuitable "Lolita" pictures to be something of a warning shot. Even Mark Williams-Thomas (or whatever his name is) commented that they were a bloody ridiculous choice of photo to release. It is like the Mc's were warning those in "the know" to watch their backs IMO

I've always believed that, and have said so several times. To the ordinary public, the photos would have meant nothing. But IMO to those "in the know" those photos would have been very familiar, and could have been instructions as well as warnings: watch out, delete from your hard drives, destroy all evidence.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 20:53

canada12 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
I always thought the release of the highly unsuitable "Lolita" pictures to be something of a warning shot. Even Mark Williams-Thomas (or whatever his name is) commented that they were a bloody ridiculous choice of photo to release. It is like the Mc's were warning those in "the know" to watch their backs IMO

I've always believed that, and have said so several times. To the ordinary public, the photos would have meant nothing. But IMO to those "in the know" those photos would have been very familiar, and could have been instructions as well as warnings: watch out, delete from your hard drives, destroy all evidence.

Let's sit back and await the disruptors arrival ……. big grin

There are a few who feel this "thesis" is coming close to the mark …..

by Woofer 30.07.14 21:01

Ladyinred wrote:
secrets and lies wrote:Thank you, MissBeetle.!

John Geraghty, I believe:

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

The JG I meant was Jim Gamble of Operation Ore fame - he who rounded up hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the UK who had been buying child porn on the internet - an American Company was involved called Landslide I think. Only a fraction of the people on the list were arrested and charged, which means there are some who are known to have purchased child porn but have not been charged. It was said there were many professional people on the list including lawyers and doctors. Just google Operation Ore. For some reason Tony Blair had it certified IIRC or had a D notice put on the investigation just like he did with Dunblane.

It must have been JG that GM got the CEOP manuals from, and wasn`t it him who put GM`s name forward for a bravery award and had GM be the guest speaker at a police conference - its always seemed to me that JG can`t do enough for GM - as if he`s deeply involved. Just a hunch that`s all.