Re: Portuguese Geography

by guest3 04.12.14 18:24

Dee coy - so beautifully put! Thank you.

I understand why people pour over every photograph and every youtube video to try to make sense of this. It has perhaps become a means of trying to make sense of many things that are going on at the moment. But Richard Hall's documentary made one thing very clear and that was that a cover up by the media, much of which was initially very sceptical, has taken place and that the government and secret services seem to have jumped in right from the start for reasons that are not at all clear.

Now place this against the widescale sexual abuse that has gone on in north Wales, Islington, Dolphin Square, Jersey, and all the rest. Margaret Hodge who presided over Islington Council when children in care were being widely abused is still Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Our nation is corrupt right up to the top. Yet, apathy amongst the general population and a certain willed blindness means that Jimmy Savile could do what he wanted, seemingly wherever he wanted and ...? What else has happened and is happening of which we are blissfully unaware?

What interests me is how people are kept compliant in this whole process.  If drama is used to manipulate perceptions of the McCann case then how and in what direction are perceptions being shepherded? By gaining an insight into how the public is being played we may gain a greater understanding of what game is really being played. If we are being pushed to believe that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile then it is highly possible that this is not the case. Some seem to believe that Madeleine was killed accidentally and that this was covered up - why would the British govt. jump in to save the skin of two obscure doctors? What underlying themes exist in this case that may link it to other mysterious cases of which there are many in Britain? It is likely that an examination of underlying themes would yield more results than other avenues that may have been exhausted.

This is what I am trying to say. There may be other ways of examining this case that may not be instantly obvious.

by Dr What 04.12.14 19:59

In my opinion, the Blair/Brown years in power were one of the most corrupt and manipulative.

In 2007, Brown was drawn into the McCann affair.Initially, he possibly thought that it was a popular cause to support.He gave full Government support to a family in Portugal who he thought would make him popular.No-one in power at the time really gave a damn about the McCanns.It was the potential positive media attention that made them attractive to Brown.

The McCanns ,of course, started to create problems.Statements did not add up and it became obvious that they had neglected their children.Senior diplomatic staff sent to help, started to advise caution in support of the McCanns.But Brown was in too far.He could not afford to look foolish.Thus the cover-up started.The confusion started.Quietly, Brown distanced himself from the affair.

But once a cover-up starts, it has to be continued...'national security' is used as a block.We all know it is more akin to 'personal protection' or 'reputational protection'.The McCanns were known as stupid and vacuous, but Brown was in so deep with Socrates, that he could not back out now.

Ever since, the McCanns have enjoyed a level of calm that they do not deserve.The public know this and one day, the McCanns will have to publicly account for their actions.They do have the Fund to help them avoid the day of reckoning, but they have lost everything else.

by Woofer 04.12.14 21:05

@ diorcann - "What interests me is how people are kept compliant in this whole process"

Do you mean those in the know (TPTB) or the general population? If you mean the general population, surely that always has been and still is quite easy, as most people are too busy coping with every day life to follow such a case, or any news items for that matter.

If you mean TPTB one only has to look at all the other cover ups, some of which you listed, to understand how easy it has been in the past - but perhaps not so easy recently.

by missbeetle 04.12.14 21:23

More scenery and sensitivity from Gerry :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(photograph dated 2nd June 2007)

Are they looking out towards Praia da Rocha - or have I got it wrong again?

Many thanks.

by Monty Heck 05.12.14 9:38

missbeetle wrote:More scenery and sensitivity from Gerry :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(photograph dated 2nd June 2007)

Are they looking out towards Praia da Rocha - or have I got it wrong again?

Many thanks.

Afraid so, they are looking west - towards Burgau which is beyond the headland top left.

by Monty Heck 05.12.14 10:00

aiyoyo wrote:Gerry and Kate at around the same place in early June, 2007 :

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

Interesting pic. Odd rather !
Both were dressed in semi-smart casuals (Gerry in business pants, collar T-shirt, leather shoes; and Kate in her by her standard smart scandals (not her usual favourtie dog-muzzle-kind scandals ), appearing to be taking respite on a rock on a sea front.
Their dressing is so out of place for the venue, which begs the question what were they doing there dressed that way?

Who took their photo and why was it released? dWho knew they went there?
You got to wonder whether it was a pre-arranged photoshot, or were they chanced upon by journalist-photographer and were snapped unbeknown to them?

It's definitely not image of a pair of disheavelled parents out looking for their missing child in their distraught state - not dressed like them - besides no normal people dressed in smart casuals to go to a rocky sea front.

Very strange behavior, whatever they were doing there.[/quote]

Odd indeed, and given the second view of this shot provided by missbeetle on a later page, has the appearance of a photoshoot. They look as though they have just been somewhere "official"- church perhaps, except there are numerous photos of casual attire for church attendance. It appears that K, overcome, has had to be sat down to be comforted by G in a private moment. Exceot that there are benches under the pergolas in the background and they have had to make their way over the rocks for a fair distance, and there is at least one someone else present, who is taking the shot.

For many, the posed photoshoots were one of the surprising things about this case that summer and I, like others had assumed the media shots were taken opportunely, while the McCs were out and about. There was day long shoot at the hotel Vila Luz, mentioned earlier, where an apartment had been rented to enable changes of outfit (yes, really) presumably to give more variety to the scenes posed. This was witnessed by close friends there at the time who were absolutely bemused by the proceedings in the circumstances. Then later it was revealed that the McCs had indeed co-ordinated outfits, K in matching sets of fiddly jewelley and turned out at pre-arranged times for the press. Scenes never seen before in a missing child case and hopefully never again.

by **PeterMac** 05.12.14 10:41

Monty Heck wrote:
Who took their photo and why was it released? Who knew they went there?
You got to wonder whether it was a pre-arranged photoshot, or were they chanced upon by journalist-photographer and were snapped unbeknown to them?

It was clearly pre-arranged. The photographer has moved round at fairly close range, and neither is looking at him, as they would if he were a paparazzo
They have chosen the spot carefully, so that the rock shel is at a proper height, and their feet touch the ground, but it is not so low that the photo would be up-skirt !
Does anyone have the photos either side of these ? Are they easily findable on the agencies website

by aiyoyo 05.12.14 12:02

Monty Heck wrote:

Odd indeed, and given the second view of this shot provided by missbeetle on a later page, has the appearance of a photoshoot. They look as though they have just been somewhere "official"- church perhaps, except there are numerous photos of casual attire for church attendance. It appears that K, overcome, has had to be sat down to be comforted by G in a private moment. Exceot that there are benches under the pergolas in the background and they have had to make their way over the rocks for a fair distance, and there is at least one someone else present, who is taking the shot.

For many, the posed photoshoots were one of the surprising things about this case that summer and I, like others had assumed the media shots were taken opportunely, while the McCs were out and about. There was day long shoot at the hotel Vila Luz, mentioned earlier, where an apartment had been rented to enable changes of outfit (yes, really) presumably to give more variety to the scenes posed. This was witnessed by close friends there at the time who were absolutely bemused by the proceedings in the circumstances. Then later it was revealed that the McCs had indeed co-ordinated outfits, K in matching sets of fiddly jewelley and turned out at pre-arranged times for the press. Scenes never seen before in a missing child case and hopefully never again.

They were dressed as if going to town to keep an appointment than for sea front, but could also be "church", but they'd been seen to be sloppy for church as you rightly noticed.

PeterMac's got a good point, it seems a pre-arranged photoshoot. They were always quite formally or at least smart casuals dressed for official photoshot or press conference.

It was probably a planned photoshot with member of the press to produce for release good quality distraught shots of them as part of their spin campaign. The planned venue was probably somewhere out and they dressed accordingly but the venue got changed at the last minute; and by then mismatched outfit for the venue becomes secondary issue.

Isolated rocky seafront makes sense for avoiding crowd, and for photographer to direct them on how to pose, act and role play for the camera . Except they didn't cast so well, they couldn't appear distraught even when they tried. The output was pathetic and the juxtapositon of them in clothes mismatched for venue just ended up looking so superficial.

by guest3 05.12.14 13:36

@woofer

I think I might be guilty of derailing this thread so I'll reply to this and then shut up. I am really talking about perception control. This is now clearly and openly moving into covert behaviour control. Take a look at Dave's Nudge Unit - The Behavioural Insights Team I think they call it that now is partly privatised. Think thro the implications and it makes your hair curl.

I think Richard Hall's doc was at least partly making the point that this case can only really be understood as part of a wider move to control perceptions and to tell people what to think as our democracy crumbles.

by Monty Heck 05.12.14 14:55

PeterMac wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Who took their photo and why was it released? Who knew they went there?
You got to wonder whether it was a pre-arranged photoshot, or were they chanced upon by journalist-photographer and were snapped unbeknown to them?

It was clearly pre-arranged. The photographer has moved round at fairly close range, and neither is looking at him, as they would if he were a paparazzo
They have chosen the spot carefully, so that the rock shel is at a proper height, and their feet touch the ground, but it is not so low that the photo would be up-skirt !
Does anyone have the photos either side of these ? Are they easily findable on the agencies website

Afraid I can take no credit for the quote above, which was made by Aiyoyo but wondering the same nontheless. It does seem pre-arranged and you are right, any paparzzo would either be close by (i.e. on the rocks alongside them) and would have attracted their attention, or offshore on a boat, but the position of the photographer seems to preclude that. When these shots were taken might be another interesting question. KcC's extreme pallor (in comparison with the football shot which must have been much later) suggests an early date and also that the weather was poor during the holiday week. We know a considerable amount of time up til 3 May was spent outdoors enjoying sporting activities yet in this shot there is little, if any sign of having spent time in the sun.

by j.rob 05.12.14 14:57

aiyoyo wrote:Gerry and Kate at around the same place in early June, 2007 :

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

Interesting pic. Odd rather !
Both were dressed in semi-smart casuals (Gerry in business pants, collar T-shirt, leather shoes; and Kate in her by her standard smart scandals (not her usual favourtie dog-muzzle-kind scandals ), appearing to be taking respite on a rock on a sea front.
Their dressing is so out of place for the venue, which begs the question what were they doing there dressed that way?

Who took their photo and why was it released? dWho knew they went there?
You got to wonder whether it was a pre-arranged photoshot, or were they chanced upon by journalist-photographer and were snapped unbeknown to them?

It's definitely not image of a pair of disheavelled parents out looking for their missing child in their distraught state - not dressed like them - besides no normal people dressed in smart casuals to go to a rocky sea front.

Very strange behavior, whatever they were doing there.[/quote]

----------

What is the building in the background I wonder? And, no, I am not about to scrutinize the pic for photo-shopping, so no narky comments please! I presume the photo is supposed to portray a kind and caring Gerry comforting a distressed Kate. He has his arm around her and is turned towards her with an expression of concern for her welfare - whether this is a genuine emotion or not. She has her eyes closed as if she wants to escape from the emotional situation she is in, perhaps? Maybe this is genuinely how they both felt. Maybe it isn't.

But that appears to be what the photo is trying to convey. At least to me.

But context is always important so I just wonder why they chose to be photographed sitting on those particular rocks with those particular buildings in the background?

I know that the rocks are mentioned quite a bit in Kate's book (but not sure exactly which ones) so I presume they have some significance to her.

by j.rob 05.12.14 15:10

doircann wrote:Dee coy - so beautifully put! Thank you.

I understand why people pour over every photograph and every youtube video to try to make sense of this. It has perhaps become a means of trying to make sense of many things that are going on at the moment. But Richard Hall's documentary made one thing very clear and that was that a cover up by the media, much of which was initially very sceptical, has taken place and that the government and secret services seem to have jumped in right from the start for reasons that are not at all clear.

Now place this against the widescale sexual abuse that has gone on in north Wales, Islington, Dolphin Square, Jersey, and all the rest. Margaret Hodge who presided over Islington Council when children in care were being widely abused is still Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Our nation is corrupt right up to the top. Yet, apathy amongst the general population and a certain willed blindness means that Jimmy Savile could do what he wanted, seemingly wherever he wanted and ...? What else has happened and is happening of which we are blissfully unaware?

What interests me is how people are kept compliant in this whole process.  If drama is used to manipulate perceptions of the McCann case then how and in what direction are perceptions being shepherded? By gaining an insight into how the public is being played we may gain a greater understanding of what game is really being played. If we are being pushed to believe that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile then it is highly possible that this is not the case. Some seem to believe that Madeleine was killed accidentally and that this was covered up - why would the British govt. jump in to save the skin of two obscure doctors? What underlying themes exist in this case that may link it to other mysterious cases of which there are many in Britain? It is likely that an examination of underlying themes would yield more results than other avenues that may have been exhausted.

This is what I am trying to say. There may be other ways of examining this case that may not be instantly obvious.

Good post! I agree actually. Probably need to examine it from different angles and perspectives. But I do think that the Missing People organisation, of which Kate McCann is Ambassador (ahem!) is part of the 'wider agenda'. And its counterpart in the US is now in very deep water, it would seem. As many of the cases were fraudulent.

And if you consider the scandals at children's homes where children supposedly go 'missing' when in fact other darker forces are at play, then perhaps this might explain some of the mystery.

I wonder if this case possibly has anything to do with medical experimentation? Or covering up health/environmental/medical issues?

The IVF angle is interesting. And Gerry has those nuclear links. And of course the nuclear stuff does have potential devastating consequences on the environment and on public health (Chernobyl). And wasn't Smethurst the lawyer who defended the nuclear industry in law suits relating to children with cancer? Sorry, I am hazy on the details but this stuff is potentially quite dark.

by Monty Heck 05.12.14 15:16

j.rob wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Gerry and Kate at around the same place in early June, 2007 :

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

Interesting pic. Odd rather !
Both were dressed in semi-smart casuals (Gerry in business pants, collar T-shirt, leather shoes; and Kate in her by her standard smart scandals (not her usual favourtie dog-muzzle-kind scandals ), appearing to be taking respite on a rock on a sea front.
Their dressing is so out of place for the venue, which begs the question what were they doing there dressed that way?

Who took their photo and why was it released? dWho knew they went there?
You got to wonder whether it was a pre-arranged photoshot, or were they chanced upon by journalist-photographer and were snapped unbeknown to them?

It's definitely not image of a pair of disheavelled parents out looking for their missing child in their distraught state - not dressed like them - besides no normal people dressed in smart casuals to go to a rocky sea front.

Very strange behavior, whatever they were doing there.

----------

What is the building in the background I wonder? And, no, I am not about to scrutinize the pic for photo-shopping, so no narky comments please! I presume the photo is supposed to portray a kind and caring Gerry comforting a distressed Kate. He has his arm around her and is turned towards her with an expression of concern for her welfare - whether this is a genuine emotion or not. She has her eyes closed as if she wants to escape from the emotional situation she is in, perhaps? Maybe this is genuinely how they both felt. Maybe it isn't.

But that appears to be what the photo is trying to convey. At least to me.

But context is always important so I just wonder why they chose to be photographed sitting on those particular rocks with those particular buildings in the background?

I know that the rocks are mentioned quite a bit in Kate's book (but not sure exactly which ones) so I presume they have some significance to her.[/quote]

The bulding behind is the Foraleza da Luz, an old (18th century?) coastal fort, now converted into a rather nice restaurant. It's across and slightly downhill from the church. There's a glass covered dining terrace to the left of the shot, about level with GMcC's shoulder, which overlooks where they are sitting and is popular at lunchimes as well as evenings. This is not a spot chosen for privacy as it's overlooked not only by the Fortaleza but also the lookout point at the western end of the promenade (where the street lamp is), to KMcC's right), a popular vantage point which overlooks the sea. There are any number of places with walking distance of that spot to be alone and gaze out to sea but this is not one, rather more a place to go if one wanted to be observed. Or indeed to have one's picture taken against a pleasing backdrop. An opinion only.

by Liz Eagles 05.12.14 15:20

Monty Heck wrote:
j.rob wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Gerry and Kate at around the same place in early June, 2007 :

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

Interesting pic. Odd rather !
Both were dressed in semi-smart casuals (Gerry in business pants, collar T-shirt, leather shoes; and Kate in her by her standard smart scandals (not her usual favourtie dog-muzzle-kind scandals ), appearing to be taking respite on a rock on a sea front.
Their dressing is so out of place for the venue, which begs the question what were they doing there dressed that way?

Who took their photo and why was it released? dWho knew they went there?
You got to wonder whether it was a pre-arranged photoshot, or were they chanced upon by journalist-photographer and were snapped unbeknown to them?

It's definitely not image of a pair of disheavelled parents out looking for their missing child in their distraught state - not dressed like them - besides no normal people dressed in smart casuals to go to a rocky sea front.

Very strange behavior, whatever they were doing there.

----------

What is the building in the background I wonder? And, no, I am not about to scrutinize the pic for photo-shopping, so no narky comments please! I presume the photo is supposed to portray a kind and caring Gerry comforting a distressed Kate. He has his arm around her and is turned towards her with an expression of concern for her welfare - whether this is a genuine emotion or not. She has her eyes closed as if she wants to escape from the emotional situation she is in, perhaps? Maybe this is genuinely how they both felt. Maybe it isn't.

But that appears to be what the photo is trying to convey. At least to me.

But context is always important so I just wonder why they chose to be photographed sitting on those particular rocks with those particular buildings in the background?

I know that the rocks are mentioned quite a bit in Kate's book (but not sure exactly which ones) so I presume they have some significance to her.

The bulding behind is the Foraleza da Luz, an old (18th century?) coastal fort, now converted into a rather nice restaurant. It's across and slightly downhill from the church. There's a glass covered dining terrace to the left of the shot, about level with GMcC's shoulder, which overlooks where they are sitting and is popular at lunchimes as well as evenings. This is not a spot chosen for privacy as it's overlooked not only by the Fortaleza but also the lookout point at the western end of the promenade (where the street lamp is), to KMcC's right), a popular vantage point which overlooks the sea. There are any number of places with walking distance of that spot to be alone and gaze out to sea but this is not one, rather more a place to go if one wanted to be observed. Or indeed to have one's picture taken against a pleasing backdrop. An opinion only.[/quote]
....................................................................................

The reply function has stopped working today Monty,

I'm really grateful to you for local knowledge - your post about a rented room for change of clothes is an eye opener.

Think Pink.

by Monty Heck 05.12.14 15:47

Re: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 1:20 am

(Not using quotes to avoid the long trail) It was pretty jaw dropping at the time. The publicity campaign, understandable perhaps, but a hired apartment to change outfits for a photoshoot seemed more in keeping with modelling for a clothing catalogue. Perhaps that may seem harsh as who can really say what they would do if their child vanished, but with the best will in the world the incident simply jarred with the situation. This also took place very shortly before they fled back to England when, as we now know, they were coming under intense pressure from the investigation yet the show, it seemed had to go on.

by Liz Eagles 05.12.14 15:54

Monty Heck wrote:Re: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 1:20 am

(Not using quotes to avoid the long trail) It was pretty jaw dropping at the time. The publicity campaign, understandable perhaps, but a hired apartment to change outfits for a photoshoot seemed more in keeping with modelling for a clothing catalogue. Perhaps that may seem harsh as who can really say what they would do if their child vanished, but with the best will in the world the incident simply jarred with the situation. This also took place very shortly before they fled back to England when, as we now know, they were coming under intense pressure from the investigation yet the show, it seemed had to go on.

Whose show is the point though isn't it?

It certainly wasn't about finding Madeleine McCann.

by aiyoyo 05.12.14 19:00

Monty Heck wrote: When these shots were taken might be another interesting question. KcC's extreme pallor (in comparison with the football shot which must have been much later) suggests an early date and also that the weather was poor during the holiday week. We know a considerable amount of time up til 3 May was spent outdoors enjoying sporting activities yet in this shot there is little, if any sign of having spent time in the sun.

Caption on the photo states Kate & Gerry were having a private moment on the seafront, dated 2 June 2007.
Safe to assume photo was taken shortly before that date.
If it was shot by a professional (highly probable) using an expensive SLR camera, the camera settings - light aperture etc was probably set to optimal light capture combined with natural light caused the pale pallor on Kate's legs. Her averted face facing Gerry although shaded in shadow still shows some colour in it. Gerry's face too still shows unfaded tan.

by missbeetle 05.12.14 19:12

A couple more from the Solarpix photoshoot :

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

Behind them, the hill with the trig station obelisk...?

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

Heading out towards the deep blue Atlantic...?

by j.rob 05.12.14 19:59

What a very strange photo that lower one is!

I find the first posting in this thread of interest. If deeply disturbing.

And that alleged photograph of Madeleine McCann in the football shirt most definitely had shades of the Soham murder girls.

This whole affair McScam is so sordid.

Repulsive and revolting. Whatever the truth of what happened.

Snipped from the first post in the link below (my emphasis in bold).

You only have to look at the hysteria shrouding this most recent case to know how much of an impact it has upon the national consciousness and how devious a scheme it could be for the imposition of certain agendas: microchipping, surveillance etc, not to mention the programming element mentioned earlier in this thread. The other huge effect that this has on society is making parents coup their kids up at home playing computer games, watching TV and eating junk food because it's 'not safe outdoors'. Freedoms are being compromised and liberties are being taken away and they're using an innocent young girl to do it.

Bloody right. Expose this absolute DISGRACE for what it is. Rupert Murdoch go f*** yourself (along with everyone else who is implicated in this depraved debacle.)

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

by missbeetle 05.12.14 21:58

A couple more strange pictures from Alamy taken out and about in Praia da Luz :

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

...small girl in pink being held up to Kate four months to the day Madeleine disappeared -

- Kate's not into it, though - or perhaps the gesture has come as a surprise?

This next picture, though, is a cracker. I was wondering who the chap behind them could be :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
...when I scrolled down and caught Gerry's face!

By jingoes he's a rotter!

That is just my opinion anyway.

by Woofer 05.12.14 23:15

They must have gone out shopping for all this black stuff - wonder why black bottom halves and shoes for that day - its not the sort of clothes one takes on holiday. Perhaps it was part of the black suits they bought to visit the Pope - but why wear them on that day at the hotel and both of them doing it as well - almost as if it was obligatory.

by aiyoyo 06.12.14 8:03

missbeetle wrote:A couple more from the Solarpix photoshoot :

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

Behind them, the hill with the trig station obelisk...?

Suntan on them still evident in this photo.

by aiyoyo 06.12.14 8:14

missbeetle wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
...when I scrolled down and caught Gerry's face!

By jingoes he's a rotter!

His trademark smirk and dressed in muck-about casuals for church....tze tze...tze.....!

No doubt whatsoever their formal-clothed seafront pics was prearranged for orchestrated release....

Image control vs freefall.....goes to show they can't control everything ...

by **PeterMac** 06.12.14 11:00

The Solarpix series is staggeringly "set up"

This is just one of a whole series taken in the new apartment, and hundreds of them with the twins on full display to the entire world,
I have done the decent thing !
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

And they had the Gall to protest about Press intrusion at Leveson.

One wonders if somewhere there are some of K failing to make love to G !

by Woofer 06.12.14 11:05

The thought they had `set up` all those photo-shoots literally makes me feel sick :puke:

by **PeterMac** 06.12.14 11:13

Go to
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and just put in mcann and some dates

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

This was well organised and we have no doubt who organised it, do we. Disgusting creature.

In the top photos they seem to have lost another child !

by Woofer 06.12.14 11:39

Why does that make me feel so sick?

I wish I could ask them - what in heaven`s name made you do that?

by **PeterMac** 06.12.14 12:22

Quoting my self - from a few posts above

What possible reason could they have for wanting these picture to be in the public domain.
To demonstrate how they read a book to the twins - without creasing the bedcovers, perhaps ?

If we look at that photo again we can see very clearly how scruffled up the bedclothes become when people with small wriggling children sit on them even just to rad a book.
Now look back at the immaculate bed-spread on M's bed in the official photos, and try to image K, the twins and Madeleine all reading singing and then doing the little clapping your hands song,
Then M "snuggling down" into the bed, before the twins were dumped in the travel cots.

Yet again the photos prove their lies.
[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/img]

by Woofer 06.12.14 12:29

PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:Why does that make me feel so sick?
I wish I could ask them - what in heaven`s name made you do that?
It wasn't Heaven's name. The name is Mitchell. Or Clarence Mephistopheles Jabulon Mitchell, to give his full name

But I agree. What possible reason could they have for wanting these picture to be in the public domain.
To demonstrate how they read a book to the twins - without creasing the bedcovers, perhaps ?

It`s Jahbulon

You`re making him sound like 007

btw - is 008 on holiday this week?

by j.rob 06.12.14 17:51

PeterMac wrote:The Solarpix series is staggeringly "set up"

This is just one of a whole series taken in the new apartment, and hundreds of them with the twins on full display to the entire world,
I have done the decent thing !
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

And they had the Gall to protest about Press intrusion at Leveson.

What prats they are. Their daughter has allegedly been stolen by a (paedophile) abductor who is still 'out there' waiting to swoop down on other blonde-haired, blue eyes young children.

So what do they do? They allow their surviving children to be on public display to the whole world, including Madeleine's abductor/s.

This case disgusts me so much. The very people who are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, imo, are shown smiling and laughing and parading their surviving children to world-wide exposure.

One wonders if somewhere there are some of K failing to make love to G !

Pass the vomit bucket!

(And so early on after Madeleine's 'abduction' too - 19th May. Astonishing.)