Let's Not Forget Brenda

jeanmonroe wrote:"are you sure about this, wee Martin?"

"Yeah, yeah, nobody will know where this is, and your identity"

I'm, pretty sure, the 'floodgates' will oepn, when one of the 'oldies' from either family passes on.

My bet is BH.

PeterMac wrote:Just a random selection of photos for people to compare.  No link between any of them, of course.

Ankles
" />" />


Bangle
" />
" />


Hair
" />
" />

Favourite Colour
" />
" />

"WE are talking about material which are libellous, completely untrue.
WE were getting nowhere by reporting it to the sites
WE were finding people going on line .. .

Anyone want to Purport anything ?

Joss wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Just a random selection of photos for people to compare.  No link between any of them, of course.

Ankles
" />" />


Bangle
" />
" />


Hair
" />
" />

Favourite Colour
" />
" />

"WE are talking about material which are libellous, completely untrue.
WE were getting nowhere by reporting it to the sites
WE were finding people going on line .. .

Anyone want to Purport anything ?

plebgate wrote:Wow that woman could certainly be a dead ringer for someone   with calf muscles like that they certainly shouldn't be in leggings.  

Awww poor little swan only offered a meagre piece of bread, where did the rest of the (meat) loaf go. 

jeanmonroe wrote:

"evening all"

"I stress, yet again, despite rumours and gossip circulating, that neither Miss Piggy and Kermie, nor any of their friends, are  suspects, or persons of interest, in Operation Strange's £10+million, UK taxpayer funded, investigation" into a 3 years old child's 'disappearance' whose actual parents were away from their diliberately left unlocked apartment, where they had consciously left her alone, with her 2, even younger siblings, for at least 34 minutes"

"Thankyou"

"My name is DCI Mahogany, a 30 year career, hard nosed, experienced, elite, detective of the world renowned, Metropolitan Police"

"I love's peeling onions,............... backwards"

"Night, all"

statsman wrote:If this had been preplanned, it's possible it could have been taken during the Edinburgh Festival (last 3 weeks in August).

I believe that Philomena McCann's husband is into 'the Arts'.

Just a thought.

Stillthinking wrote:I'll start by saying I think it's wrong to out people regardless of which "side" is doing it. The most common reason people want to remain anonymous online is because there are some complete and utter lunatics and psychopaths out there. I'm at  a loss as to why, if they accepted the danger of outing somebody online, Sky didn't give Brenda the same anonymity that they gave to the person handing in the dossier. Did they not know there are, what I would term extremists on both sides of the fence?


I may be in the minority here but I have always liked Phil McCann and her brutal honesty and loyalty. I see her as a woman who believes her little brother is innocent and would defend him to the death. So if it turned out she was involved in preparing the dossier I could understand why... but ( again IF it turned out she was involved) would there be any legal implications if the McCanns were ever found guilty of  a crime and she had been part of an orchestrated exercise to silence those who suspected they were guilty?

Stillthinking wrote:I'll start by saying I think it's wrong to out people regardless of which "side" is doing it. The most common reason people want to remain anonymous online is because there are some complete and utter lunatics and psychopaths out there. I'm at  a loss as to why, if they accepted the danger of outing somebody online, Sky didn't give Brenda the same anonymity that they gave to the person handing in the dossier. Did they not know there are, what I would term extremists on both sides of the fence?


I may be in the minority here but I have always liked Phil McCann and her brutal honesty and loyalty. I see her as a woman who believes her little brother is innocent and would defend him to the death. So if it turned out she was involved in preparing the dossier I could understand why... but ( again IF it turned out she was involved) would there be any legal implications if the McCanns were ever found guilty of  a crime and she had been part of an orchestrated exercise to silence those who suspected they were guilty?

Woofer wrote:@stillthinking - yes defend your little brother if you know he is innocent IMO, but the whole family must know by now that he is not.  Would I defend my brother if I found out he was not as innocent as he`s trying to make out?  I don`t know the answer to that.

tiny wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:I'll start by saying I think it's wrong to out people regardless of which "side" is doing it. The most common reason people want to remain anonymous online is because there are some complete and utter lunatics and psychopaths out there. I'm at  a loss as to why, if they accepted the danger of outing somebody online, Sky didn't give Brenda the same anonymity that they gave to the person handing in the dossier. Did they not know there are, what I would term extremists on both sides of the fence?


I may be in the minority here but I have always liked Phil McCann and her brutal honesty and loyalty. I see her as a woman who believes her little brother is innocent and would defend him to the death. So if it turned out she was involved in preparing the dossier I could understand why... but ( again IF it turned out she was involved) would there be any legal implications if the McCanns were ever found guilty of  a crime and she had been part of an orchestrated exercise to silence those who suspected they were guilty?

no sorry but Philomena MUST had read the files and KNOWS the shutter WERE NOT JEMMIED( the first lie), so she must know her brother is a LIAR,so then she MUST know that her brother and sil have lied ever since. if that were me I would definitely not let my brother get away with murder(if it was proved it was him)of a child.

Stillthinking wrote:

Woofer wrote:@stillthinking - yes defend your little brother if you know he is innocent IMO, but the whole family must know by now that he is not.  Would I defend my brother if I found out he was not as innocent as he`s trying to make out?  I don`t know the answer to that.

As an observer, uninvolved in the case, using logic not emotion, the main things that jump out to me are Kate refusing to answer questions and the dogs alerts. Were I emotionally involved in the case/related to K&G then I guess I might jump to the same conclusion Philomena did, that Portuguese police were trying to set K&G up. Or I might also reach the conclusion that as Gerry did answer his questions and there were no alerts on his clothing that he wasn't involved.

WMD wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Woofer wrote:@stillthinking - yes defend your little brother if you know he is innocent IMO, but the whole family must know by now that he is not.  Would I defend my brother if I found out he was not as innocent as he`s trying to make out?  I don`t know the answer to that.

As an observer, uninvolved in the case, using logic not emotion, the main things that jump out to me are Kate refusing to answer questions and the dogs alerts. Were I emotionally involved in the case/related to K&G then I guess I might jump to the same conclusion Philomena did, that Portuguese police were trying to set K&G up. Or I might also reach the conclusion that as Gerry did answer his questions and there were no alerts on his clothing that he wasn't involved.

Blood is thicker than water,just what if,she really does believe him,she might well believe he had nothing to do with it and until such time it comes to court (if it ever does) then he might well be under suspicion,but she can still go on believing him.IMO

Stillthinking wrote:

tiny wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:I'll start by saying I think it's wrong to out people regardless of which "side" is doing it. The most common reason people want to remain anonymous online is because there are some complete and utter lunatics and psychopaths out there. I'm at  a loss as to why, if they accepted the danger of outing somebody online, Sky didn't give Brenda the same anonymity that they gave to the person handing in the dossier. Did they not know there are, what I would term extremists on both sides of the fence?


I may be in the minority here but I have always liked Phil McCann and her brutal honesty and loyalty. I see her as a woman who believes her little brother is innocent and would defend him to the death. So if it turned out she was involved in preparing the dossier I could understand why... but ( again IF it turned out she was involved) would there be any legal implications if the McCanns were ever found guilty of  a crime and she had been part of an orchestrated exercise to silence those who suspected they were guilty?

no sorry but Philomena MUST had read the files and KNOWS the shutter WERE NOT JEMMIED( the first lie), so she must know her brother is a LIAR,so then she MUST know that her brother and sil have lied ever since. if that were me I would definitely not let my brother get away with murder(if it was proved it was him)of a child.

The shutters not being jemmied does not make Gerry a liar though if he saw them up/was told they were up  and believed they had been jemmied at the time.

Changing his story about which door he entered through is more of  a lie but he could probably argue that he was panicking or just didn't want to admit the patio door was open

tiny wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

tiny wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:I'll start by saying I think it's wrong to out people regardless of which "side" is doing it. The most common reason people want to remain anonymous online is because there are some complete and utter lunatics and psychopaths out there. I'm at  a loss as to why, if they accepted the danger of outing somebody online, Sky didn't give Brenda the same anonymity that they gave to the person handing in the dossier. Did they not know there are, what I would term extremists on both sides of the fence?


I may be in the minority here but I have always liked Phil McCann and her brutal honesty and loyalty. I see her as a woman who believes her little brother is innocent and would defend him to the death. So if it turned out she was involved in preparing the dossier I could understand why... but ( again IF it turned out she was involved) would there be any legal implications if the McCanns were ever found guilty of  a crime and she had been part of an orchestrated exercise to silence those who suspected they were guilty?

no sorry but Philomena MUST had read the files and KNOWS the shutter WERE NOT JEMMIED( the first lie), so she must know her brother is a LIAR,so then she MUST know that her brother and sil have lied ever since. if that were me I would definitely not let my brother get away with murder(if it was proved it was him)of a child.

The shutters not being jemmied does not make Gerry a liar though if he saw them up/was told they were up  and believed they had been jemmied at the time.

Changing his story about which door he entered through is more of  a lie but he could probably argue that he was panicking or just didn't want to admit the patio door was open

where does it say Gerry saw the shutters up?never read that before

tiny wrote:kate did say this though.

Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed"

Gerry said this.




"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone" 


Mitchell said this

The McCann spokesperson, Clarence Mitchell ALSO having to re-tract the earlier story of the jemmied shutters make a few changes to his previous spoutings...


“There was no evidence of a break-in.  I’m not going into detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are FIRMLY of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine OUT of the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything.  They got out of the window fairly easily.”


from lying in the sum.


bloody liars the whole rotton lot of them

tiny wrote:


When redwood said he was fighting for Madeleine I really believed him and thought yes he will get the mccanns and tapas lot,but alas he also said they were not people of interest.

WMD wrote:

tiny wrote:


When redwood said he was fighting for Madeleine I really believed him and thought yes he will get the mccanns and tapas lot,but alas he also said they were not people of interest.

But the way I read it as,an abduction then of course they wouldn't be,but he's/they are now looking at forensics something as changed from a review to an investigation IMO.

tiny wrote:

WMD wrote:

tiny wrote:


When redwood said he was fighting for Madeleine I really believed him and thought yes he will get the mccanns and tapas lot,but alas he also said they were not people of interest.

But the way I read it as,an abduction then of course they wouldn't be,but he's/they are now looking at forensics something as changed from a review to an investigation IMO.

Quite true it is an investigation now,but I still think that sy want to get rid of any samples,just hope Portugal do not give them any

tiny wrote:When redwood said he was fighting for Madeleine I really believed him and thought yes he will get the mccanns and tapas lot,but alas he also said they were not people of interest.

Stillthinking wrote:

tiny wrote:When redwood said he was fighting for Madeleine I really believed him and thought yes he will get the mccanns and tapas lot,but alas he also said they were not people of interest.

But he is telling the truth. Suspect or person of interest are police terms so unless and until police have announced that a person is either of those things then they are not either of those things.

Remember  Sousa announcing that the McCanns were not suspects and were being interviewed as witnesses? ... about a week later they were made arguidos. But at the time he made that declaration he was correct they were not suspects. Same applies here they are not suspects. That may or may not change in the future.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-top-cop-inisists-mccanns-are-victims-not-suspects-6609911.html