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 as some of them are 'members only', 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!


My Theory

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 10:48

Hey guys,

This is my first post but I am not new to the case at all. I have what I feel is a working hypothesis for abduction which explains most of the discrepancies. I understand from reading around here that people are both very knowledgeable about the case (some far beyond my knowledge), and also that there are some strong ingrained opinions, which is natural after almost 8 years.

My theory does not implicate either of the McCanns and I don't name suspects, I want to be clear about that first of all. I don't want to get into debating the 'who'. What I want to ascertain is how far my 'how' is realistic.


I will also be up front in mentioning that the JT sighting is NOT incorporated whatsoever (though I acknowledge she was out of her seat), and I don't try to explain cadaver scent in the rental car. What I am looking at is the initial crime scene.

If this seems written in an odd manner it's because I wrote the bulk of it (sans bold additions) as a narrative for a video I made, which I will link at the end (I think in this forum reading is better, the video is rough and was recorded while I had a cold!).



The Theory


Let me begin by reasserting that this is a theory, but one which I believe fits snugly with the details we have. Any nouns I use do not refer to particular people. It's not my intention to suggest names, but simply to put my theory forward.

We start at 2030: The McCanns check their 3 children, then leave their apartment via the patio doors. Both the front and back doors are unlocked. The bedroom window is shut, with the outside shutter only slightly open to let in a small amount of light. They make their way to the Tapas Bar, where they meet Matt and Rachael Oldfield (5B), Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien (apartment 5D). All of their companions are also ground floor flats. The Paynes (5H), a trio of adults (husband, wife, mother of wife) who are staying on the first floor, arrive around 2100. 

Matthew Oldfield goes to check on his children around 2100. He takes time to notice the state of the McCann shutters:

Matthew Rogatory Interview 09 April 2008
So I went and listened, I went, I found the time, because we'd only just been in there about fifteen minutes ago, and I just listened outside her shutters, so I just passed along that wall that goes to the two, sort of to the McCANN's apartment, so I listened outside our shutters and went along to their shutter and had a listen out there, not because I'd been asked to, but, or it's not the sort of thing you think about, it's just kind of, erm,".

 4078 "You thought you might as well?"

 Reply "So I thought I might as well and I can report back and they can be, you know, be reassured that everything was okay. And we talked a lot in the previous interviews about what state the shutters were in, whether they were, and they were all definitely down, there's three shutters, you know, there's, you know, two, and they're all at the same level, there was no, I would have noticed if they were, if one was up and the rest were down, it would have looked odd".

 4078 "What was the lighting like around that area at that time?"

 Reply "It's getting dusk, erm, by that time, but not completely dark, erm, it was not as dark as it got later on (inaudible) visibility".


And later (ibid)

Reply "Well it wasn't murky, I mean, you were close to the shutters, they're sort of white and they're lined, I think it'd be fairly obvious if there was a dark gap along the bottom, if they'd been raised particularly".

Not observing the shutters being slightly open, as mentioned by Gerry:

 
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the shutters closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he mentions that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, therefore, without a light being lit in the living room or in the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced


And then he
(Oldfield) returns. He is instantly put out by Gerry's reaction to his check:

But I remember Gerry specifically going because I thought, well I've just checked (inaudible) and then, you know, well I hadn't been in so I couldn't really check and, you know, they're his kids, it was quite right that, if that's what he wants.

Neither Gerry or Kate seem aware of Oldfield's check, possibly not hearing over the group chat.

As told by Gerry:
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
At around 21H00, MATHEW stood up from the table, saying that he was going to check on the children. Nevertheless, he did not say that he would go to check on the deponent’s children, and it was only after the disappearance of MADELEINE that he told him that at 21h00 the shutters of the children's bedroom window were closed. At 21H05, MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go check on his children.


Gerry goes to the apartment and makes his check between 2105 and 2115. He takes time as he uses the toilet and also speaks to Jeremy on his way back. Jane Tanner also gets up to check on her children, passing Gerry and Jeremy, although they do not notice her. Gerry returns to the meal before Jane. At 2125-2130 Matthew Oldfield goes to make checks, offering to check on the McCann children allowing Kate to keep chatting. Matthew enters through the patio doors, noticing the living room is lit by a small corner lamp (which is later switched off in PJ photos), he walks to the bedroom door but does not enter. He can see the twins in their cots, so the door must be open at least 45 degrees.

Matthew Rogatory Interview 09 April 2008
Now the room was, we talked also in the interviews about how light the room was and whether I could see the shutters, and I can't see the shutters because the curtains were shut and, they're similar curtains to the ones you've got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which is why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a question of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet".


He can see the twins in their cots breathing but only the 'corner' of Maddie's bed. He thinks the room is oddly lit, specifically mentioning that he doesn't notice 'slats of light', but doesn't investigate further. He returns to the party. Russell had also got up when Michael does, and checks on his daughter, who is crying, so he stays, not returning to the party.

Between 2116 and 2145, Maddie was taken. The perpetrator entered through the patio doors, knowing that they were unlocked. Slipping into the bedroom, they found all the children asleep - Maddy lying on her side, barely inside her covers. The perpetrator walks to the window, opening the slats. This gives the perpetrator vision of the small car park out the window. A car is waiting, and he sees a thumbs up Critical thing here is that there was more than one abductor, and only Maddy needed to pass through the window. Silently, he now raises the shutter, ratcheting it up from the inside. The second perpetrator steps easily over the small dividing wall and waits (alternatively the car is parked with the door right next to the car park path entrance, stepping over the wall/flowerbed unnecessary).

Silently, the perpetrator opens the window with a gloved thumb, pushing the glass to the left. Now, he walks towards Madeleine, gently picking her up, and passing her to the second perpetrator, her small body passing silently through the divide. The perpetrator draws the curtains, deciding not to risk making more noise by closing the shutters and glass. The second perpetrator lays Maddy over the back seat, the girl not stirring at all.

Possible parents had used calpol to settle the children after recent disturbed nights where Sean was reported crying and Maddy asked 'where were you'. This is delicate information which I wouldn't expect to see disclosed, if at all. No drug tests were performed at the time. Alternatively the perpetrator could have used an agent like chloroform (it seems unlikely that the twins simply slept through everything, including the later melee).

The car then drives away and to the right (it is also possible the car was simply left in gear beside the road rather than inside the car park, although this appears less inconspicuous). The perpetrator now walks quietly towards the front door, knowing it to be unlocked (or that it can be traversed irrelevant of being locked from the inside, as attested by Kate, need confirmation of that), and calmly exits. He then takes the long route left, left again (technically three lefts) and then straight forward, so that he appears to be emerging from the poolside patio entrance alone, then walks with deliberacy past the Tapas reception, and crosses the road, either getting into the second perpetrator's waiting car, or dropping an item of clothing there before returning to the resort. Who was present in 5a after the alert? Did any of those people then go to the (then named) Batista supermarket? Possible Maddy's scent was on them. As the trail seemed to end at the car park, I assume the first perpetrator left, or at the very least deposited the coat/jacket/shirt that would have been in contact with Maddy when carrying her. It was the diagram of the sniffer dog trails, from May 4th and 8th, which made this click for me:



WHY would the perpetrator take the long route around the apartments, instead of simply getting into the car first? Simply, this was a person who
NEEDED to be seen walking alone, from the direction of the 'patio path'. I make no inference about who it could be, because and there are many possibilities. But by emerging from that place, at that time, they had a perfect alibi, guest, staff or other. Perhaps the car waiting was part of a normal routine, or belonged to a resident. The biggest misnomer has been the search for someone carrying a child. Maddy was only carried from the bed to the car, in the hands of two people, for a period of seconds. Whatever the case, the abductor did their part and then took that walk. A waiting car across from the reception of a resort is pretty incognito, and with Maddy asleep in the back, perhaps under blankets or perhaps incapacitated with a substance like chloroform, nothing would look out of the ordinary. Perhaps also in a child seat, although this would make her easy to spot

For instance, the words of Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja, the executive chef of the Ocean Club:
When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus.....After parking his vehicle, he entered through the reception of that restaurant.....

And of Stephen Carpenter
who could be the key witness:
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home.... When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and I calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment

The road was in frequent use, and a car was even waiting outside the reception around 2110. If the chef was just 6 minutes out with his time estimate
or if we accept some of the group got their timings out by minutes, the blue car could even have been the car Maddy was inside. Not only this, but the car would've almost certainly been waiting right near Gerry and Jeremy as they had their conversation. 

This theory potentially finally puts to bed the question of why the window was open, and proves that the original sniffer dogs were following more than just 'sacks of refuse', which was always an odd statement given that they followed the same trail 4 days apart. The theory asserts that the crime took place in the bedroom only, and all other assumed aberrations in the apartment were natural red herrings in a perplexing mystery. That the perpetrator shut the curtains shows that they wanted to buy time, and not wake/disturb the twins with the brighter light, bringing someone to the scene sooner.

Logically speaking, a simple line of investigation would be to find out which locals were conspicuous by their ABSENSE during searching.
Also close attention should be paid to the testimony of Carpenter (not disclosed with the PJ files).

And most chillingly, the contamination of the crime scene and flat before police arrived means that Maddy's abductor could've been in the same room as the grieving parents, playing along.

Video:

The video explains my interpretation of the window (initial statements of forced entry, jemmying etc), dna, locks and initial statements. I can paste the narrative of this part on request.

Thanks if you read this far and I look forward to hearing some feedback.
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by Guest on 10.04.15 11:34

What about the dogs findings in the apartment?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by Guest on 10.04.15 11:42

Couple of other things.
Gerry goes to the apartment and makes his check between 2105 and 2115


Between 2116 and 2145, Maddie was taken.

At 2125-2130 Matthew Oldfield goes to make checks,

So before MO check and after GM's or after MO's check,which is it?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 11:47

WMD - this is what I said in the video about Eddie/Keela:


'I refer you now back to the statement about Kate McCann's behaviour:
Fiona Payne, in an interview with the Leicestershire Police, April 2008
And the helplessness, errm... of not being able to do anything, what should she be doing, what could they do? Errm... she was angry, really angry, tut, punching walls, kicking walls, she was covered in bruises the next day, because she just didn't know what, what else to do.
Punching walls would easily leave dead skin, traces of blood etcetera. It isn't possible to know whether these samples came from Kate punching the wall, but it is much more plausible than the idea that Maddy was bleeding, and the abductor had time not only to dispose of her but also clean up the floor tiling.

The Amaral theory has it that Maddie could have died accidentally. Again, while the possibility exists, the forensics don't really support it.

The sniffer dog evidence is hard to account for. Primarily, one dog, Eddie, highly specialised to detect cadavers, alerted in several places - behind the sofa (where samples were taken), in the McCann PARENTS bedroom cupboard, items of Kate's clothing, in the flowerbed outside the patio doors (misidentified as outside the bedroom window in diagram), and in the back of a rental car which was rented a full 25 days AFTER Madeleine's disappearance. The dogs are not by themselves admissable as evidence in Portuguese law. This however doesn't discount them. Kate explained the scent of death on her clothing being logical since she was 'around 9 cadavers in her profession before the holiday'.

We know at the most extreme spectrum Madeleine could have died at any time between 1830 and 2200. This is 3 1/2 hours. Cadaver dogs are trained on scent just under 3 hours. Logically assuming that a body would be gone by 2200, this leaves a window of maybe 45 minutes in which the scent could be genuinely from Maddy within the apartment.

The main problem, though, with the sniffer dog evidence, is that it was done weeks later. On the night of May 3rd many people entered and left the apartment and as such it was completely contaminated. Even were the sniffer dogs admissible in court, this fact would negate them entirely (legally). It's entirely possible the abductor returned to the scene and helped with the search.

However, it is the original sniffer dogs which helped me to come to my own conclusions. the dogs which were used on May 4th and May 8th - sniffing simply for Madeleine's scent. These dogs are part of the key to unlocking this mystery.'


Re Oldfiled's timing -it could be either. As the quotes show he wasn't aware of 'slats of light' implying the window could have already been open. I don't go further because as I say, I don't want to suggest suspects, but his words are very relevant/possibly revealing.


ETA: Bear in mind my explanations for this theory are based around the original timeline. I obviously can't connect hypotheticals like 'what if she died earlier that day and the mess (scene) was already cleaned up'.
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Poison

Post by Tony Bennett on 10.04.15 11:59

A theory wholly unsupported by the evidence - and contradicted by shoals of evidence.

It's as deadly poisonous as the username of the OP - and like any poison it would be best to get rid of it entirely from this forum and so not waste anyone's time any further

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14899
Reputation : 2991
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:05

Tony - firstly my username is one I have used for years, if you'd like to pm me I can show you this, I am not here to troll.

I have seen you write at length in great detail in other threads, so I am perplexed that you have responded so aggressively. I am not attempting to change minds but assess my theory. Could you help instead of strawmanning?
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by Angelique on 10.04.15 12:07

Why would Kate bash the wall behind the sofa in particular?

Actually what is strange is all the other DNA results on that particular wall behind the sofa!

It's those pesky unreliable dogs again!


____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 12:09

@cyaneyed wrote:The main problem, though, with the sniffer dog evidence, is that it was done weeks later. On the night of May 3rd many people entered and left the apartment and as such it was completely contaminated.

Right... "completely contaminated" by dead people.

You're having a laugh.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:12

Angelique - perhaps your comment was a generalisation on other people's words, but I certainly don't refer to the dogs as unreliable.

Bluebag - As I mention, the scene was completely contaminated, and it was entirely possible that the abductor returned to the scene during the melee. If Maddy was killed then the scent could've been on them. ETA: This is compounded by the fact there was no scent in the children's bedroom itself, which they say access was limited to.
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 12:14

I call BS.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:16

@BlueBag wrote:I call BS.

Care to expand? I'm asking for criticism here so fire away.
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 12:22

@cyaneyed wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:I call BS.

Care to expand? I'm asking for criticism here so fire away.
It's not just the apartment.

It's the toy, the clothes and the car.

You're really REALLY stretching it to claim an anonymous abductor did it - way beyond the bounds of credibility.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:24

Where did I say anonymous?
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 12:27

@cyaneyed wrote:Where did I say anonymous?
Whatever.

How did the abductor contaminate Kate's trousers in the "melee"?

How did the abductor climb behind the sofa in the "melee"?

How did the abductor get K&G to change and back-fit their statements?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by LombardySkeptik on 10.04.15 12:28

So - in summary of all the supporting ..ahem...evidence (text, incl bolded and italics) for this 'Theory'

A bad man did it and ran away (with Maddie)

Not new - some UK tourists there at the time also suggested this if I recall

Not a theory I can agree with

____________________
Morto, ma io non ho dimenticato lei

LombardySkeptik

Posts : 80
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 12:30

@LombardySkeptik wrote:
A bad man did it and ran away (with Maddie)
In a nutshell.

Not backed up any any evidence whatsoever.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by Guest on 10.04.15 12:34

@BlueBag wrote:
@cyaneyed wrote:Where did I say anonymous?
Whatever.

How did the abductor contaminate Kate's trousers in the "melee"?

How did the abductor climb behind the sofa in the "melee"?

How did the abductor get K&G to change and back-fit their statements?
Not forgetting cuddlecat.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:37

Bluebag/Lombard - The whole premise of this is that it was not 'someone random', there is no investigative merit in such reductionist comments.

It was someone who both knew the door was unlocked, knew the parents were away, and had reason to be seen emerging from the patio entrance area. And it's not 'a bad man did it', I said there have to be at least 2 people.

Look, I understand people have ingrained opinions, I said as much in my first post. I am not looking for passive aggressive attempts at sarcasm, I'm looking for constructive critiques of my theory (to my knowledge noone has posited the abduction the way I have framed it, if you can show me a source I will happily take that back).

It seems common sense that if Kate held the soft toy with the scent that scent would transfer to whatever she was wearing...the dna behind the sofa is quite the enigma, however by assuming it is just Maddy's you are ignoring the fact that it came from more than one source.
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by worriedmum on 10.04.15 12:42

If the wall had been punched, it would have shown marks and even dents.
If the wall had been punched where the blood was found, wouldn't one of the witnesses to the event have stepped forward to tell us-a long, long, time ago?
How do you punch a tiled floor?
How do you get under a sofa to punch a tiled floor?
How does the blood get cleaned under the sofa?
Why does the cadaver dog alert there?

?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1865
Reputation : 457
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:47

@worriedmum wrote:If the wall had been punched, it would have shown marks and even dents.
If the wall had been punched where the blood was found, wouldn't one of the witnesses to the event have stepped forward to tell us-a long, long, time ago?
How do you punch a tiled floor?
How do you get under a sofa to punch a tiled floor?
How does the blood get cleaned under the sofa?
Why does the cadaver dog alert there?

?
Thank you for the constructive reply in a debate forum.

 - I didn't actually say that the wall was punched behind the sofa.
 - It was dna discovered
 - The lack of marks is a sticking point and needs more corroboration (see, I am here to find holes, this is what I was looking for)
 - Noone would/did punch a tiled floor, but I assume with your fist
 - Was there evidence of cleaning behind the sofa?
 - Because the scene was contaminated after the fact
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 12:55

@cyaneyed wrote:Bluebag/Lombard - The whole premise of this is that it was not 'someone random', there is no investigative merit in such reductionist comments.

It was someone who both knew the door was unlocked, knew the parents were away, and had reason to be seen emerging from the patio entrance area. And it's not 'a bad man did it', I said there have to be at least 2 people.

Look, I understand people have ingrained opinions, I said as much in my first post. I am not looking for passive aggressive attempts at sarcasm, I'm looking for constructive critiques of my theory (to my knowledge noone has posited the abduction the way I have framed it, if you can show me a source I will happily take that back).

It seems common sense that if Kate held the soft toy with the scent that scent would transfer to whatever she was wearing...the dna behind the sofa is quite the enigma, however by assuming it is just Maddy's you are ignoring the fact that it came from more than one source.
Your theory doesn't fit with the witness statement contradictions.

But Ok for sake of argument... if we very narrowly limit this situation... using your skill and judgement tell us who besides the parents would have contaminated all the places alerted to by the dogs.

You obviously think they are known to the parents?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 12:59

Thanks Bluebag -

As I said, I am not here for the 'who', but the 'how'. There are lots of possibilities and this is something far too big for me to just throw out names. At least 3 people were up from the table after Gerry returned, staff coming and going, other guests around. As I said, Carpenter's statements may hold the answer.

What contradictions are you referring to specifically?
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by BlueBag on 10.04.15 13:06

@cyaneyed wrote:
What contradictions are you referring to specifically?
You can not be serious.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by cyaneyed on 10.04.15 13:10

@BlueBag wrote:
@cyaneyed wrote:
What contradictions are you referring to specifically?
You can not be serious.

Again, you don't add to a debate with lines like that, at least try!

I am serious in the sense that I can't respond to individual things if you paint with a broad brush. There were a lot of discrepancies in the statements, which is why I went with the initial statements in forming this theory. There are a lot of natural mistakes, for instance assuming the window was the entry point. I understand the skeptical view that this was an ill conceived lie which was later retracted, but in the scope of my theory, the McCanns are not involved (again I realise that is an instant 'switch off' for some people), and it would be perfectly natural to assume that had been the entry point in the heat of the moment. Later, with hindsight, calm and more knowledge this could be discounted.
avatar
cyaneyed

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-04-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: My Theory

Post by Guest on 10.04.15 13:17

@cyaneyed,do you have a theory for the why?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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