The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Page 4 of 29 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16 ... 29  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by HelenMeg on 14.04.15 20:12

What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.04.15 20:15

@NickE wrote:

"You saw what we did together to produce that fabulous article in the Sun, with Rosalinda portrayed as the 'anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of attacking other people on the internet".

"Just you wait and see what the two of us are cooking up for you all next time!

"See you in the Sun and on SKY sometime soon - Byeeee!"

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by NickE on 14.04.15 20:19

@HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.
agreed

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1034
Reputation : 331
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 42

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by sharonl on 14.04.15 21:02

@NickE wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.
agreed


IMO

Team McCann (accused of staging an abduction), also went to an awful lot of trouble to convince us that May 3rd was the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance.   Unfortunately, many have fallen for this, including the PJ, and therefore, not enough attention was paid to the McCanns activities on the previous days.

Is there really any credible and verifiable evidence to suggest that Madeleine was around after April 29th?

If I am correct, and they had lost Madeleine earlier in the holiday, what are the chances that they would risk leaving the other children unattended for any period of time?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4355
Reputation : 774
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Still optimistic about Poulton's film?

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.04.15 21:11

@HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the McCann Team want everyone to believe.
@ HelenMeg 

This hadn't occurred to me - and it is a very important point indeed, given what we have been promised.

In fact, just reflecting on a few things, I am wondering how long Hutton & Poulton have known each other and whether they are planning and participating in a very deep game that might end up as an even worse disaster than some of us have feared.

I have checked Sonia Poulton's utterings quite often in the past year and I concede that she refers to the neglect issue but nothing else.

As for Hutton, this does appear to be true also, indeed in the course of her many ramblings on the McCann case, she is surprisingly obtuse - to the point of being deliberately evasive, I would argue - in her analysis of the facts of the case.

Here are a few of Hutton's past posts to sample:


1. First-ever post of substance on the McCann case, 17 July 2012, 'Madeleine McCann'

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/madeleine-mccann.html

This is real life however, and in real life, detectives rarely, if ever, solve homicides and missing people cases within 60 my gut feeling is, that the [McCanns] and their friends, should get themselves ruled out as suspects once and for allminutes, or during an ad break. I have made up my own mind, based on the evidence that exists, though I am always open to persuasion either way, but . I think this would have been hugely beneficial to the morale and enthusiasm for their search.


2. "I'm not a bleddy hater, Lorraine" - October 2013

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/im-not-bleddy-hater-lorraine.html

They have accepted, without question, the word of parents who admitted they left their children alone, almost every night of their holiday, even when their oldest child asked them why they didn't come to herself and her brother when they cried. As heartbreaking as that is, the parents then went out again, and that child is missing, probably dead. Are these commentators aware that on May 1st Madeleine cried non stop for over an hour, sobbing and screaming inbetween? Are they aware of the distress of the elderly lady in the apartment upstairs, hearing this child cry and being unable to do anything? Are they holding their hands over their ears and saying 'that's horrid, I'm not listening'?

They are accepting, on the word of two former suspects, that experienced detective Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese police who investigated Madeleine's disappearance are incompetent and corrupt, as too are the officials who run the Judiciary. The final report does not say the parents are innocent, the final report says they lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. Kate refused to answer police questions and the entire group refused to return for a reconstruction.

Of course among the McCann watchers, there will be gloaters inevitable in a case such as this. Gloaters for non Blackadder fans, are people who crowd around to gloat at others' misfortunes. The McCanns did of course give all of us an opportunity to pat ourselves on the backs, because unlike the good doctors, we would never have left our tiny children on their own to go out to dinner, so we are better than them. However, those who wanted to say that, got it out of their system long ago.


Now the hot news is a Gerry lookalike wandering around PDL at 10pm with a Madeleine lookalike. I could have tripled the length of that last sentence by stating it couldn't possibly be him, but I couldn't bring myself to type it. Of course, my omission will lay me open to all sorts of hate mail, but, seriously, what are the chances of Gerry having a doppelganger in PDL, out and about enjoying the night air at the same time as himself, and making off with a child who looked exactly like Madeleine? They even had matching chinos with buttons down the side. Spooky huh? I say the aforementioned with trepidation, because I fear a future where questioning the McCanns will lead straight to jail without passing Go.

[ NOTE from TB:  The bit in red is of especial interest to me, given the fury with which she attacked me for doubting that the Smiths had seen Gerry McCann or that the Smith sighting was genuine. Indeed, she insisted that by casting doubt on the Smith sighting, I had ruined the chances of a fair trial, by undermining - she said - the palpably genuine evidence of the Smiths ]  


3. WTF moments: No odd behaviour that night - April 2015 

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/wtf-moments-no-odd-behaviour-that-night.html

Whilst establishing that Madeleine had been abducted, the McCann Media Machine also established that the parents didn't do anything wrong. Leaving babies alone while you go out to dine is the British way apparently. Legal advice was quickly sought and obtained by the parents, checking on the children every half hour fell well within the bounds of responsible parenting. Thousands of people they said, had contacted them to reassure them that they do exactly the same, even dopey sofa Queens, alarmingly, said they too, had done this, so they couldn't be more sympathetic.


4. WTF Moments Part II: Blame the Police - April 2015

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/wtf-moments-part-ii-blame-police- 

(Another recent blog emphasisng the 'neglect by leaving the children alone' angle)   

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thus, this film is being made by two people who share the view that the McCanns are culpable for leaving their children on their own, so allowing an abductor to snatch Madeleine.

It is being made by someone who used her time on David Icke's 'People's TV' channel to interview three people only on the Madeleine McCann case: Stephen D. Birch, conspiracy fantasist and now-registered sex offender, barrister Michael Shrimpton, and Hutton.

It is being made by someone who deliberately arranged for Hutton to be interviewed (and paid?) by the Sun for a terrible two-page article representing 'anti-McCanns' as vile haters - and who appears on the SKY News sofa every month or so.

And as 'Ladyinred wrote on another thread:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1354p140-gerald-mccann-cats-system-registration-number-19309

"I wonder if Bannerman is an acquaintance of Rosalinda Hutton. He's wearing a WTF T-shirt and she's currently writing a series of blogs entitled, WTF Moments. She's also involved with the child abuse campaign. I'd bet that [Poulton] was filming the demo".

...I agree that it is something of a coincidence, to say the least, that Hutton begins to write a series of 'WTF' articles, just as 'Bannerman' appears with a 'WTF' T-shirt.


The omens IMO are really not looking good - but good luck to anyone who's still optimistic about Poulton's promised film

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 14.04.15 22:01

@sharonl wrote:
@NickE wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.
agreed


IMO

Team McCann (accused of staging an abduction), also went to an awful lot of trouble to convince us that May 3rd was the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance.   Unfortunately, many have fallen for this, including the PJ, and therefore, not enough attention was paid to the McCanns activities on the previous days.

Is there really any credible and verifiable evidence to suggest that Madeleine was around after April 29th?

If I am correct, and they had lost Madeleine earlier in the holiday, what are the chances that they would risk leaving the other children unattended for any period of time?

Sharoni, this specific question was asked on Textusa blog several days ago. Textusa responds and is of the opinion that death occurred early evening on the 3rd, which is the same opinion as GA, whom I have not aware has changed his stance. Personally, I am with you - 29/30 April.

Helenmeg, I think you were asked this a few days ago by TB but I am not sure I have seen your response. I really respect your views so please point me in the right direction if I have missed something.

I think this issue is pivotal to solving what happened. Open to all opinions/arguments as always.

All of the above IMO
avatar
Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 385
Reputation : 186
Join date : 2014-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.04.15 22:27

@Carrry On Doctor wrote:
HelenMeg, I think you were asked this [why you think Madeleine died on the evening of 3 May] a few days ago by TB but I am not sure I have seen your response. I really respect your views so please point me in the right direction if I have missed something.
Just to be clear, it was back on 15 March, a month ago, that I asked HelenMeg if she would be able to explain her reasons, and the same day she replied as follows:

"Not ignoring - just not getting more than 5 mins to respond...hope to have more time later - although I only have opinions and beliefs based on what I read and think logical - I don't have evidence as such..."

I don't think she's replied yet.

Reference has been made to others who also share the view that Madeleine died some time in the very late afternnon or early evening of 3 May, a theory I find impossible to accept.

Most of those who support this theory agree I think with Dr Amaral who felt sure that the nanny who siad she had 'high tea' with Madeleine and her parents at around 5.30pm on 3 May was telling the truth.

In terms of the better-known people whose view is that Madeleine died late afternoon/early evening on 3 May,  they include:

* Dr Goncalo Amaral
* Pat Brown and
* Textusa.

Also, if I am not mistaken, Johanna Renstein ('Unterdenteppichgekehrt').

Apologies if I've missed anyone significant out of that shortl list.

I was just asking for the specific reasons why anyone believes this to be true - do they simply follow Amaral on this? -or do they have other reasons for their belief?

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by HelenMeg on 14.04.15 22:29

Hi Carry on Doctor

I am now a firm believer that death occurred on the evening of 3rd May, in accordance with Amaral's views.... For a long while I did wonder if it could 've occurred much earlier in the week... but I now believe this is yet another myth that Team Mc Cann would like us to discuss and believe.

Textusa explains very well the reasons for not believing in an earlier time of death - (in her response to a comment on her blogsite)  -  I hope she wont mind me copying it here. I think Team Mc Cann are very happy that we spend time discussing substitute theories and death occurring on Sunday / Monday...
   

We do not go for death before 3rd because existing evidence points otherwise.

Hastily changed timelines, conflicting statements Gerry and Kate's attitudes suggest a panicky response on the night (if planned, would they not be actively participating in bogus search, being themselves the first to convince others to play along?)

The mistakes made, window, pointing to wrong bed, no sheets on the cots, sedated twins show that they were reacting rather than acting.

What was the gain in waiting? To get their act together? It seems they didn't make any good use of that time. Not even to get a big round table to show where they sat at.

Don't the retrofit stories you allege prove the exact opposite? If they did have the time to think things through, why the need to retrofit the thought out story?

What about Philip Edmonds letter about Maddie being in playground on May 3rd He states clearly he photographed Maddie. Is Edmonds a liar? We think he was telling the truth.

Is it because of the créche sheets (evidently as fake as the Tapas reservation sheets) have doubtful handwritings? Those sheets have a purpose and it wasn't to show that Maddie was or wasn't there.

Is it because of the last picture being evidently photoshopped? And the photoshopping of other pictures? And that proves what? For us it proves that they were desperate in showing a family time that did not exist. They were not there to take family pics, so they didn't have them. But to justify a "family holiday" they had to produce some, didn't they? Aren't the ones known too few for a week's holiday? We think they are, but to photoshop takes time and effort and it's not as easy as taking a picture, is it?

We are not persuaded by early death theories based on pre-planning, premeditated murder and substitute child - the one who has been named, has been so without ANY no supporting evidence the child was ever present. A terrible way to involve a real child in a totally unbelievable scenario.

We do not fall for the myth that all blonde-girls look alike. That is as stupid and xenophobic as saying that all Chinese or all black people look alike. We challenge people to google up a pic of a 4 yr old blonde girl we would confuse with Maddie.

And did sub-girl have a coloboma (or significant "fleck" in her eye as per late mind changing of her parents about the illness)? The picture on the cover of Kate's book shows clearly a girl with a very significant mark on her eye which would make inevitably anyone looking at her notice it.

Please understand why death before the third exists.

It benefits only one person.

All others (guests, Ocean Club and nannies) are "thrown" from participants who were caught up in events and complied lie so as to "confirm" a scenario that was condemning to the T9 into being active participants who acted in a disgusting and sick play in roles they accepted for days to be a part of.

This said, we inform we will not get into any debate on the sub child theory. We think we have sufficiently justified why we wo
n't.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 14.04.15 22:37

It is certainly hard to argue with TextUSA whoever they are.

I hope very soon they do a post about the why all these people were convinced to accept roles in this "play".
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by HelenMeg on 14.04.15 22:39

I think if they had had 2 or 3 days to plan - things would have gone rather more smoothly.

But a key reason for me, indicating that death had only just occurred, was Kate's appearance as Gerry made the public statement for the media on the 4th May. She was in a grey T shirt. She was
visibly distraught - the only time I have seen proper raw emotion. It wasnt contrived - I dont believe it was acting - it was the face and look of someone who was going through great trauma at having just lost her child.
It was raw. Whatever had happened - had happened very very recently.. IMO.

and I'm sorry I hadn't responded sooner to Tony's question.. I work and have been away for a while and just hadnt revisited the thread. Apologies.

But going back to Sonia et Cristobell.. I do find it odd that they have not moved past the 'Neglect'...most people by now understand that 'neglect' was necessary to enable an abduction to take place. To be called neglectful suited their purposes very well. Why oh why do Sonia and Cristobell push neglect?

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Some different opinions from Textusa

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.04.15 22:47

Thank you for posting your views @ HelenMeg, which I think can be summed up as an amalgam of the views of Dr Goncalo Amaral and 'Textusa'.

I do have these comments on 'Textusa's views:

+++++++++++++++++++++

 
Textusa: Gerry and Kate's...panicky response on the night...

REPLY: If, for the sake of argument, and speaking in general terms, any couple were simulating an abduction following a death, as suggested by Amaral in this case, I suggest they would be very nervous or panicky, whether the death of their child had occurred 4 hours or 4 days beforehand. I accept though that if it was 4 hours, the degree of panic would be much greater.    
.
Textusa: What about Philip Edmonds' letter about Maddie being in playground on May 3rd? He states clearly he photographed Maddie. Is Edmonds a liar? We think he was telling the truth.

REPLY:  I don't. Of all the claimed evidence that Madeleine was alive on 3rd May, that must surely be the weakest line of evidence?  

Textusa: Is it because of the last picture being evidently photoshopped?

REPLY: I do not agree that the 'Last Photo' was photoshopped.
 
Textusa: We are not persuaded by early death theories based on pre-planning, premeditated murder and substitute child -

REPLY: On that specific point, I am in full agreement with Textusa.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Laura Youngson on 15.04.15 6:51

Quote Textusa:  


Please understand why death before the third exists.

It benefits only one person.

All others (guests, Ocean Club and nannies) are "thrown" from participants who were caught up in events and complied lie so as to "confirm" a scenario that was condemning to the T9 into being active participants who acted in a disgusting and sick play in roles they accepted for days to be a part of.



This quote from Textusa for me makes me agree that death occurred on 3rd May. Why would everyone involved lie if death occurred a few days before? I mean, just look at how many people would have to lie and agree to 'act in a disgusting and sick play......'

TB, is it possible that you have been thrown off the scent by believing death occurred earlier in the week because you are of the belief that pretty much everyone is lying. 

She also says death before the 3rd benefits only one person - does she mean Gerry? Why not Kate aswell?

Laura Youngson

Posts : 2
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by BlueBag on 15.04.15 7:19

She may have died on the 3rd, but the process might have started earlier and she was poorly for a few days.

I still think Tuesday night had something to do with it.

Sheets being washed is a clue.

Cleaned apartment.

Imagine a group of Doctors on the pish not giving proper medical attention to a sick child (sick for a reason that might be another issue).
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4405
Reputation : 2222
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Guest on 15.04.15 7:23

The "last photo" (not) taken on 3rd?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by sharonl on 15.04.15 7:35

The McCanns own behaviour may be a clue to the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance.

1.  Kate and Gerry leaving and entering by different doors (not wanting to be seen as a family of only 4?)
2.  No longer eating breakfast out?
3.  Taking lunch in their own apartment whilst the rest of the group ate on the Paynes' balcony

That's just for starters, more later

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4355
Reputation : 774
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.04.15 7:54

@Laura Youngson wrote:TB, is it possible that you have been thrown off the scent

REPLY:  Unlike Eddie & Keela

by believing death occurred earlier in the week because you are of the belief that pretty much everyone is lying. 

REPLY:  All that I am prepared to say on this issue is that everyone should examine very thoroughly all that is said about Madeleine being alive on 3rd May 

She also says death before the 3rd benefits only one person - does she mean Gerry? Why not Kate as well?

REPLY:  No idea. It's far too cryptic for me

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 15.04.15 8:01

Thank you HelenMeg, you/Textusa/others could well be right.

Going a step further then, Textusa is a firm advocate of the swinging being the reason for the cover up involving so many.

For me, the lack of photos featuring MBM by any of the group is very bizarre given that it was a family (and significantly) a group holiday. I would have expected literally hundreds of photos to have been produced for the PJ, even if the adults did 'entertain' themselves at other times.

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?

Just asking opinion.

All of the above IMO
avatar
Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 385
Reputation : 186
Join date : 2014-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Knitted on 15.04.15 11:48

@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
The 'Last Photo' appears impossible to have been taken on the date/time stated, (as demonstrated by the checkable facts of the weather and of the calculated sun position/shadow length). Thus its exif data has been changed for a reason.  If Madeleine was alive on the 3rd then either a photo would exist, or the McCanns could simply say "we were having too much fun and/or we're not really a family that takes lots of photos so we haven't got one of her last day". So the very strong likelihood of a falsifying the exif data to create a 'Last Photo' is a big red flag.

Any proposed scenarios therefore have to satisfactorily explain why a falsified date/time on a 'Last Photo' was necessary.


As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not!  Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.
avatar
Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Lands_end on 15.04.15 13:09

@Knitted wrote:
@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
The 'Last Photo' appears impossible to have been taken on the date/time stated, (as demonstrated by the checkable facts of the weather and of the calculated sun position/shadow length). Thus its exif data has been changed for a reason.  If Madeleine was alive on the 3rd then either a photo would exist, or the McCanns could simply say "we were having too much fun and/or we're not really a family that takes lots of photos so we haven't got one of her last day". So the very strong likelihood of a falsifying the exif data to create a 'Last Photo' is a big red flag.

Any proposed scenarios therefore have to satisfactorily explain why a falsified date/time on a 'Last Photo' was necessary.


As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not!  Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.

Lands_end

Posts : 164
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2015-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Knitted on 15.04.15 13:24

@Lands_end wrote:
@Knitted wrote:
@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped


As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not!  Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child.  Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp.  I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.  

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.
avatar
Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Lands_end on 15.04.15 13:38

@Knitted wrote:
@Lands_end wrote:
@Knitted wrote:
@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped


As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not!  Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child.  Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp.  I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.  

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.
Nail on the head knitted. No gasping necessary as you said.

Lands_end

Posts : 164
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2015-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by BlueBag on 15.04.15 13:52

There's no evidence for swinging and people should refrain from speculating about it unless there is.

Keep asking questions about the facts and you can't get done.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4405
Reputation : 2222
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by j.rob on 15.04.15 14:12

@Knitted wrote:
@Lands_end wrote:
@Knitted wrote:
@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped


As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not!  Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child.  Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp.  I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.  

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

Yes - I agree. What has been covered up is far worse than swinging which really does not account for the high level of cover-up. 

I think there are ample red flags that at least part of what is being covered up is to do with the above sentence in bold. There are so many red flags in this direction it is impossible to ignore them. And the McCanns and their friends themselves claimed from the outset that Madeleine could have been taken by a paedophile or a paedophile ring.

The 'Madeleine was Here' series contains a number of very strange scenes that I find highly suggestive of some sort of child abuse going on. Family life chez McCann is most odd, imo. And the 'reconstruction' of the final evening which Jane Tanner, Gerry and Matt take part in is also decidedly suspect. Jane Tanner is extraordinarily flippant and appears to enjoy some kind of 'in joke' with Gerry which is decidedly inappropriate given the gravity of what is supposed to have happened to an innocent nearly four year old child. 

And Matt's 'reconstruction' of the final check of the McCann children in apartment 5A is beyond creepy. Gerry looks on shiftily while Matt's actions/behaviour and choice of words is just so weird. He even uses the term 'dead quiet' to describe what he heard, or didn't hear, from the children's bedroom. Talk about brain leak.

Then is it Matt or another male Tapas member who remembers searching along Cemetary Road on the night of Madeleine's disappearance? And remembers the name of the road with some kind of sense of irony, even? Now why would that be I wonder?

There is the apparent lack of a sports bag large enough to hide a small child's body in tennis racket in, apparently. Brains leaking information left, right and center. Even Inspector Clouseau couldn't miss all these clues, surely?

And that's without factoring in the Gasper statements; Gerry's CATS number; David Payne's suspicious actions and behaviour as evidenced in his changing rogatory statements; all the inconsistencies in the Mcs and Tapas statements; the totally inappropriate 'Lolita' style photos produced of Madeleine (I mean WTF that's a flag as big as an entire Continent) and analysis of Kate and Gerry's accounts of when they last saw Madeleine and how they found the room which again are all dripping with the language of sexual abuse, imo.  Not that I am any kind of expert in the latter but there are some excellent analyses by those who do have some expertise in this area. And I find them convincing. 

Not to mention the media 'performances' by Kate and Gerry which, again, I think are hugely incriminating. Gerry smirking with barely concealed contempt and Kate also demonstrating insincerity and duplicity, imo. And contempt - as in when she scrunches up the side of her mouth when talking about the crying incident I think it was? Shockingly glib. 

There is every indication to me that Madeleine was objectified not only by her parents but by other adults around her who are/were friendly with her parents. David Payne and other males making comments along the lines of how attractive she was and how she was fun to be with with a 'special quality'. I don't think it's appropriate for adult males who are not family or teachers, for instance, to be taking such an interest in a four year old girl who most certainly would not be interested in them. Four year old children are intensely interested in other children not in their parents' friends. 

There is no evidence that Madeleine played with any other children at Ocean Club that week, despite the fact that it is on record that she was friends with the Tapasnik's children. And, allegedly, Jez Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell's daughter who Madeleine allegedly played with at the kids' club. 

I shudder to think what happened to Madeleine that week, especially given Madeleine's father's taunt: "find the body and prove we killed her."

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Lands_end on 15.04.15 14:57

@j.rob wrote:
@Knitted wrote:
@Lands_end wrote:
@Knitted wrote:
@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped


As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not!  Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child.  Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp.  I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.  

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

Yes - I agree. What has been covered up is far worse than swinging which really does not account for the high level of cover-up. 

I think there are ample red flags that at least part of what is being covered up is to do with the above sentence in bold. There are so many red flags in this direction it is impossible to ignore them. And the McCanns and their friends themselves claimed from the outset that Madeleine could have been taken by a paedophile or a paedophile ring.

The 'Madeleine was Here' series contains a number of very strange scenes that I find highly suggestive of some sort of child abuse going on. Family life chez McCann is most odd, imo. And the 'reconstruction' of the final evening which Jane Tanner, Gerry and Matt take part in is also decidedly suspect. Jane Tanner is extraordinarily flippant and appears to enjoy some kind of 'in joke' with Gerry which is decidedly inappropriate given the gravity of what is supposed to have happened to an innocent nearly four year old child. 

And Matt's 'reconstruction' of the final check of the McCann children in apartment 5A is beyond creepy. Gerry looks on shiftily while Matt's actions/behaviour and choice of words is just so weird. He even uses the term 'dead quiet' to describe what he heard, or didn't hear, from the children's bedroom. Talk about brain leak.

Then is it Matt or another male Tapas member who remembers searching along Cemetary Road on the night of Madeleine's disappearance? And remembers the name of the road with some kind of sense of irony, even? Now why would that be I wonder?

There is the apparent lack of a sports bag large enough to hide a small child's body in tennis racket in, apparently. Brains leaking information left, right and center. Even Inspector Clouseau couldn't miss all these clues, surely?

And that's without factoring in the Gasper statements; Gerry's CATS number; David Payne's suspicious actions and behaviour as evidenced in his changing rogatory statements; all the inconsistencies in the Mcs and Tapas statements; the totally inappropriate 'Lolita' style photos produced of Madeleine (I mean WTF that's a flag as big as an entire Continent) and analysis of Kate and Gerry's accounts of when they last saw Madeleine and how they found the room which again are all dripping with the language of sexual abuse, imo.  Not that I am any kind of expert in the latter but there are some excellent analyses by those who do have some expertise in this area. And I find them convincing. 

Not to mention the media 'performances' by Kate and Gerry which, again, I think are hugely incriminating. Gerry smirking with barely concealed contempt and Kate also demonstrating insincerity and duplicity, imo. And contempt - as in when she scrunches up the side of her mouth when talking about the crying incident I think it was? Shockingly glib. 

There is every indication to me that Madeleine was objectified not only by her parents but by other adults around her who are/were friendly with her parents. David Payne and other males making comments along the lines of how attractive she was and how she was fun to be with with a 'special quality'. I don't think it's appropriate for adult males who are not family or teachers, for instance, to be taking such an interest in a four year old girl who most certainly would not be interested in them. Four year old children are intensely interested in other children not in their parents' friends. 

There is no evidence that Madeleine played with any other children at Ocean Club that week, despite the fact that it is on record that she was friends with the Tapasnik's children. And, allegedly, Jez Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell's daughter who Madeleine allegedly played with at the kids' club. 

I shudder to think what happened to Madeleine that week, especially given Madeleine's father's taunt: "find the body and prove we killed her."
All coming together by the look of things. Grange couldn't find contradictions for I'm sure they must have suspected the version of events from the outset Just a single thread is all that is needed to unravel the mystery. That thread can come from a child if one of the adults have not broken ranks already.

Lands_end

Posts : 164
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2015-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

Post by Richard IV on 15.04.15 15:07

This thread is supposed to be about Sonia Poulton and Sky isn`t it, not whether Textusa is right about swinging.

But while your at it - there`s no way IMO KM would share her husband with other women or casually go with another bloke.  She strikes me as someone who keeps tabs on her hubby and would resent him even looking at another woman.
avatar
Richard IV

Posts : 552
Reputation : 263
Join date : 2015-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 29 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16 ... 29  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum