Philomena McCann: "..one greedy, unscrupulous character.."

jeanmonroe wrote:



Hmmm. Now let me............   

NAH! I'm still totally UNSYMPATHETIC towards a negligent parent, who through her own diliberate, and conscious, actions 'lost' one of her three kids.

jeanmonroe wrote:Let's get this STRAIGHT!

I'll risk a weeks 'ban' for saying this.

NOBODY gives a flying 'fcuk' about K McCann!

IT AIN'T ALL 'ABOUT' HER!

(although she'd love it to be!)

jeanmonroe wrote:

5th May 2007.
Philomena says she has spoken to Gerry ''several times'' and she is still recounting the 'abductor through the window' scenario, when she says ''It is obvious that someone, with malicious intent, went through that window and took Madeleine.....''

"Gerry and Kate are in a clear line of sight of their kids"  (presumeably 'wearing' their X-Ray vision googles, that can 'see' through the solid brick walls of their apartment to the 'front' kiddies bedroom! OBVIOUSLY!).........Really Phil?
--------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm.

That's NOT what your BROTHER and sister in law, Gerry and Kate McCann, are saying NOW, is it Philomena?

THEY are saying the 'burglator' entered the apartment via the patio door which they, your BROTHER and his wife had, diliberately and consciously, left UNLOCKED.

If the McCanns had tried to claim for missing 'valuables' from an insurance company, they would have been laughed out of the 'office'!

"So, how did the burglars break into your apartment, to 'steal' the 'valuables' you are claiming for, Mr and Mrs McCann?"

"Er, um, erm, 'cough' they didn't ACTUALLY break in, as such, er, um, they entered our apartment through the patio door, we had diliberately and consciously left unlocked whilst we went out of sight to the tapas restaurant"

"Ah"

PeterMac wrote:Was it not she who said "Nothing of value was stolen "  ?

missmar1 wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Was it not she who said "Nothing of value was stolen "  ?

Didn't Gerry Mccann say they were lucky because they could have taken all three children ?    I can't believe that man's choice of words  !

Also, as another poster pointed out ( sorry can't remember their name )  how on earth can the Mccann's claim that it " felt safe" to leave their children alone at night in an unlocked apartment ( If they did )  yet I have never read that they also felt it was safe to leave all their valuables in the same unlocked apartment during the day  ?
Does anyone know if they locked the apartment during daytime hours when they were all out ?

PeterMac wrote:Was it not she who said "Nothing of value was stolen "  ?

jeanmonroe wrote:

missmar1 wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Was it not she who said "Nothing of value was stolen "  ?

Didn't Gerry Mccann say they were lucky because they could have taken all three children ?    I can't believe that man's choice of words  !

Also, as another poster pointed out ( sorry can't remember their name )  how on earth can the Mccann's claim that it " felt safe" to leave their children alone at night in an unlocked apartment ( If they did )  yet I have never read that they also felt it was safe to leave all their valuables in the same unlocked apartment during the day  ?
Does anyone know if they locked the apartment during daytime hours when they were all out ?

Oh yes!

On at least one occasion, and there are other examples the McCanns have given themselves, during DAYTIME 'hours', KM AND the kids had to wait patiently outside the LOCKED patio doors whilst GM went around to unlock the front door, with his key, and go through the apartment to UNLOCK the patio door from INSIDE the apartment to let her and the kids IN!

eta: I posted a LONGGGGGG post all about the 'unlocked/locked' doors to apartment 5A during their 'stay'.

Did you know, for instance, that the McCanns left the patio door UNLOCKED every night of their stay, so that 'their friends could check on THEIR kids'? (direct source: G McCann)

However it has since transpired that NONE of their 'friends' EVER 'checked' on their kids, NOT ONCE, during the whole week, EXCEPT the first 'odd' visitation by their friend, MO, on the FATEFUL night!

What an UNLUCKY 'night' he CHOSE to 'volunteer' to 'check' their kids, for the very first time,that week, huh?

If i were 'cynical', i'd 'suspect' HE might have been the 'stage' setter, opening the window, raising the shutter, for KM's later er, 'discovery'!

But i'm not 'cynical' am i?

jeanmonroe wrote:Speaking of similar/exact words used by the T9

GM statement 4th May 2007.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.

KM statement 4th May 2007.
Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.

BOTH SAY the 'distance' Jane 'saw' the 'individual/person' from was 50 (FIFTY) METRES!

'Eagle eyed' Jane then, being able to give such a detailed description of the 'abductor' clothing even down to his ZIPPED, not buttoned, up jacket, although she never actually SAW the 'abductor' FRONT on.

As Gerry McCann later said, "if Jane hadn't seen the 'abduction' it would be like Madeleine had just vanished into thin air'

eta: "a long-haired person" says KM

Kinda blows SHORT CROPPED HAIRED 'Smithman' sighting to 'smithereens' (sic) dosen't it?

dantezebu wrote:I think the above post is completely inappropriate on this forum.

sallypelt wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Speaking of similar/exact words used by the T9

GM statement 4th May 2007.
It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.

KM statement 4th May 2007.
Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.

BOTH SAY the 'distance' Jane 'saw' the 'individual/person' from was 50 (FIFTY) METRES!

'Eagle eyed' Jane then, being able to give such a detailed description of the 'abductor' clothing even down to his ZIPPED, not buttoned, up jacket, although she never actually SAW the 'abductor' FRONT on.

As Gerry McCann later said, "if Jane hadn't seen the 'abduction' it would be like Madeleine had just vanished into thin air'

eta: "a long-haired person" says KM

Kinda blows SHORT CROPPED HAIRED 'Smithman' sighting to 'smithereens' (sic) dosen't it?

This is also from Rachel Mampilly's statement of the 4.5.07:

" After placing their orders, at around 9.15pm, Gerry McCann went to check, only his apartment He was held up for nearly 10 minutes because, he said, he had been chatting with Jes about tennis. Today there was a tournament which they both had to compete in. During Gerry's absence, the waiters started to bring the food. Before Gerry arrived Jane Michelle Tanner also left [absented herself] having gone to see her apartment. A little later Jane arrived".

Again, I find this unbelievable. If Gerry left around 9:15 and returned around 9:25, why was Kate about to go do her check? Gerry McCann had only just returned.

The more one goes over the files, the more blatant the inconsistencies. And where they same the same, it's word for word.

jeanmonroe wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Even though she was not fat with a huge pair of knockers. (rephrased from Kate McCann. Sorry, i can it remember the exact words).

Kate "believes she is being PERSECUTED because of her APPEARANCE," her mother revealed today. In an extraordinary interview, Susan Healy described how her distraught daughter claimed "if she was HEAVIER—and had BIGGER BREASTS—people would be more SYMPATHETIC."
---------------------------------------------

memo to K McCann AND her mother:

People don't like bigger boobed, heavier, 'LIARS' either!



Hmmm. Now let me............   

NAH! I'm still totally UNSYMPATHETIC towards a negligent parent, who through her own diliberate, and conscious, actions 'lost' one of her three kids.