Re: PM reopens Maddie files

by Ringo 13.05.11 12:37

Stella wrote:
Ringo wrote:

When has there ever been a full review of all the information held by the various police forces involved in the investigation? When was it compiled into one database and cross-referenced by fresh, independent eyes and minds?

The British Police were there right from the start working side-by-side with the Portuguese Police. They ALL left Portugal the day after the McCann's flew home. Why do you think they did that? If Madeleine was still missing, surely they would stay around and keep looking for her right?. But, if they believed the McCann's were responsible, of course they would fly home. The proof is in the pudding.

As for the Lee Rainbow reference, that is a complete red herring - we are going back to 2007 there I believe! He was absolutely right when he said that the parents should be considered as suspects - I doubt though that he meant to the exclusion of all other possibilities!

The job of a Criminal Profiler is, to check every piece of evidence they have and from previous experience to suggest who is responsible. It is not a red herring. Lee Rainbow is a highly credited Profiler and has worked on numerous big murder cases in this country.

None of the list of "evidence" you refer to points in anyway to the McCanns being involved in their child's disappearance. This is a fact that some people really need to start facing and accepting.

No Ringo, it is not a fact. It is something you have chosen to believe. What is a fact is, that 15 markers which matched to Madeleine, found in their hire car would have led to their immediate arrests, if this had happened in the USA. They will convict on as little as 13 markers and 11 in some states. They were very lucky that Portugal currently requires 19 markers.

This is why the case was shelved.

Perhaps you could explain why the Attorney General said this then?

'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

by Ringo 13.05.11 12:40

Stella wrote:
Ringo wrote:
Wendy wrote:
beejay wrote:But I'm intrigued to learn of the latest developments which don't tie in with this theory at all - on the contrary, I'm starting to think they may be innocent after all, other than of being bad parents.

I have to say I could also be swayed into thinking they are innocent, if it wasn't for Eddie and Keela who both detected evidence in the same places. Ok, one dog may have got it wrong, but what are the chances that both dogs did?

No, I think the Mccann's have been telling, and re-telling, their big fat lie for 4 years that they honestly believe it. They live and breathe it every second of every day.

What a horrible life they must have.

I can't believe that all that prevents you from accepting what is blindingly obvious is the barking of two dogs - it really is absurd.

What is absurd, is that you refuse to read the evidence and challenge everyone else who has.

OK Stella, please explain the reason why the McCanns have been lobbying the government to a review of the case?

by biker_don 13.05.11 12:43

Ringo wrote:'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

Where did you get that?

by beejay 13.05.11 12:43

Ringo wrote:
Wendy wrote:
beejay wrote:But I'm intrigued to learn of the latest developments which don't tie in with this theory at all - on the contrary, I'm starting to think they may be innocent after all, other than of being bad parents.

I have to say I could also be swayed into thinking they are innocent, if it wasn't for Eddie and Keela who both detected evidence in the same places. Ok, one dog may have got it wrong, but what are the chances that both dogs did?

No, I think the Mccann's have been telling, and re-telling, their big fat lie for 4 years that they honestly believe it. They live and breathe it every second of every day.

What a horrible life they must have.

I can't believe that all that prevents you from accepting what is blindingly obvious is the barking of two dogs - it really is absurd.

Sorry Ringo - you were making some interesting points until this one. To trivialise the evidence from trained cadaver & blood dogs with a 100% success rate as "two dogs barking" is absurd and doesn't help your argument in the least.

However, I have still not seen anyone come up with a good reason why the McCanns should risk everything by promoting a new police investigation which is bound to raise all the question marks against them as suspects all over again.

by Ringo 13.05.11 12:50

beejay wrote:
Ringo wrote:
Wendy wrote:
beejay wrote:But I'm intrigued to learn of the latest developments which don't tie in with this theory at all - on the contrary, I'm starting to think they may be innocent after all, other than of being bad parents.

I have to say I could also be swayed into thinking they are innocent, if it wasn't for Eddie and Keela who both detected evidence in the same places. Ok, one dog may have got it wrong, but what are the chances that both dogs did?

No, I think the Mccann's have been telling, and re-telling, their big fat lie for 4 years that they honestly believe it. They live and breathe it every second of every day.

What a horrible life they must have.

I can't believe that all that prevents you from accepting what is blindingly obvious is the barking of two dogs - it really is absurd.

Sorry Ringo - you were making some interesting points until this one. To trivialise the evidence from trained cadaver & blood dogs with a 100% success rate as "two dogs barking" is absurd and doesn't help your argument in the least.

However, I have still not seen anyone come up with a good reason why the McCanns should risk everything by promoting a new police investigation which is bound to raise all the question marks against them as suspects all over again.

Ask yourself - who is it who claimed the dogs had 100% success rate? Could it be that it was their owner, the man who makes £££ from hiring them in criminal investigations like this one? Please do not fall for the spin about these dogs. All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this!

by Guest 13.05.11 12:53

biker_don wrote:Stuart Prior "I have arrested people for less"

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

by biker_don 13.05.11 12:54

Ringo wrote:Ask yourself - who is it who claimed the dogs had 100% success rate? Could it be that it was their owner, the man who makes £££ from hiring them in criminal investigations like this one? Please do not fall for the spin about these dogs. All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this!

Are you saying that both dogs were wrong in all of the same places they both alerted to?

by Guest 13.05.11 12:59

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the
Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)

by Guest 13.05.11 13:04

Ringo wrote:
All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this!

And they did find evidence. Both dogs alerted to the boot of the car and they found bodily fluids consistent with a previously frozen cadaver. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by beejay 13.05.11 13:08

[/quote]

Ask yourself - who is it who claimed the dogs had 100% success rate? Could it be that it was their owner, the man who makes £££ from hiring them in criminal investigations like this one? Please do not fall for the spin about these dogs. All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this![/quote]

Are you insinuating that Martin Grimes concocted the evidence? That makes you a conspiracy theorist!

I don't buy that at all - why would MG cause the dogs to alert in such a high profile case when there was every chance he could be found out and his reputation shattered?

by Ringo 13.05.11 13:09

biker_don wrote:
Ringo wrote:Ask yourself - who is it who claimed the dogs had 100% success rate? Could it be that it was their owner, the man who makes £££ from hiring them in criminal investigations like this one? Please do not fall for the spin about these dogs. All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this!

Are you saying that both dogs were wrong in all of the same places they both alerted to?

Not wrong necessarily - they have both been trained to alert to blood, they probably alerted to blood - but who knows and who knows whose blood they may have been alerting to? Many of the items that they alerted to were handled incorrectly, laid out on the floor of a car park, packed in boxes that had previously been used, the dogs were clearly led and directed to alert to the car and the soft toy as anyone can see from watching the videos - it was all a complete shambles.

There was no evidence of any blood or body fluid pertaining to Madeleine McCann found - that is the bottom line. NO EVIDENCE.

But I'm not here to get into a long and forensic discussion about the dog alerts.

I'll go back to the original point I commented on - why would the McCanns be begging the government for a full, independent and transparent review of the case if they were guilty?

by Ringo 13.05.11 13:11

Stella wrote:

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the
Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)

Does the above earlier interim report trump the subsequent findings of the Attorney General?

'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

by Ringo 13.05.11 13:12

Stella wrote:
Ringo wrote:
All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this!

And they did find evidence. Both dogs alerted to the boot of the car and they found bodily fluids consistent with a previously frozen cadaver. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No they did not.

by Ringo 13.05.11 13:16

beejay wrote:

Are you insinuating that Martin Grimes concocted the evidence? That makes you a conspiracy theorist!

I don't buy that at all - why would MG cause the dogs to alert in such a high profile case when there was every chance he could be found out and his reputation shattered?[/quote]

Of course I'm not saying that. What I did say is that he has a vested interest in maintaining that his dogs are 100% reliable. And - I do believe that he was perhaps over-eager for his dogs to prove their usefulness - look at the video of him calling the dog back to the Scenic - he virtually has to force it to take an interest in the car, he one plastered in posters of Madeleine McCann. Why wasn't he so insistent they gave all the other cars similar attention? I certainly don't believe he was concocting evidence because no evidence was actually discovered!

by ufercoffy 13.05.11 13:21

Ringo, I think you've been reading too much of Chief McCann supporter 'crazytony's' blog, you're practically quoting it word for word now winkwink

by Guest 13.05.11 13:23

Ringo wrote:
Stella wrote:

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the
Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)

Does the above earlier interim report trump the subsequent findings of the Attorney General?

'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

I know who you are now Ringo and no that was not an interim report. It was filed first thing on the Monday morning after the McCann's fled Portugal. No where on the actual document does it state that it was an interim report and you know it.

by Dougall 13.05.11 13:24

Ringo wrote: the dogs were clearly led and directed to alert to the car and the soft toy as anyone can see from watching the videos - it was all a complete shambles.

Then you can apply the same logic to state that they were "clearly led" to many other areas where they DIDN'T alert! When I saw the video I saw the handler focussing the dogs' attention on many different spots, they alerted when they detected something, not because the handler wanted them to!

by Guest 13.05.11 13:33

Ringo wrote:

Does the above earlier interim report trump the subsequent findings of the Attorney General?

'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

That was not the findings of the Attorney General, it was from a letter SENT TO the Attorney General by the Portuguese Prosecutors, who chose to ignore what was in the files to shelve the case.

The bottom of the letter said;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

Portimão, 21.07.08

The Republic's Prosecutor

(José de Magalhaes e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(signature)

(Joao Melchior Gomes)

by Redgoblin 13.05.11 13:36

Hi this is my first post to the forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry to butt in, as some of you were talking about the dogs - I wanted to stay within the topic of this thread.

Despite the heartfelt pleas of GM and KM by having their own team investigate "some" of the files. Surely the PJ must have some evidence about the couple /group which they would obviously not want to share with the McCann's, I suppose that evidence could be incriminating and they wouldn't hand that information to private detectives - I assume it would be available to Scotland Yard.

Which raises the question - Why would the McCann's seek this out if they knew it might lead to their own arrests?

a) Either they are completely innocent and have nothing to lose.

b) They don't believe the PJ have anything concrete to pin on them, and by reviewing the files they hope Scotland Yard draws a blank and the case (from a legal and lawful aspect) will be closed.

by Guest 13.05.11 13:37

09-Processos Vol IX Pages 2462 to 2465
09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2462

09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2463

09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2464

09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2465

Verbal Report by Martin Grime Relating to the Searches Carried out with the Dogs in the Ocean Club Apartments
　
Transcription/Translation
　
Apartment 5 A

Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from and as he has worked through the house the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking.

What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.

Moving onto the other rooms once he's found what he thinks he's looking for in this room, and we go into the bathroom and come into this bedroom he loses his interest because he's actually found the source that he was looking for, until we come over here and I think you've got it on video that when he first came in he was quite interested in the sofa but he didn't have access to the back of the sofa and when he's gone behind the sofa what I saw was that approximately in the centre of the wall where the window is, just along the tile area between the tiles and the wall, he's been scenting there a lot stronger than he has anywhere else and the when he's gone out there the second time he has decided yes that's what I'm looking for and that's when he has given me the bark indication.

What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I've ever known him bark since I've got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that's just excitement and that's one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that's a positive indication.

The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows.

The fact that there is other scientific methods being used may stop you recovering any DNA but if you try we'll see what happens. But she is very, very good and when she indicates there is always blood there.

Apartment B

We've searched this apartment with the victim recovery dog and he has shown no interest in the flat for what he he trained to find at all so we finished.

Apartment 5 D

We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.

Apartment H5

We searched this apartment and the dog hasn't shown any interest in this particular apartment, apart from around the table, where there was a tennis ball which is how we reward the dog for finding things, as soon as we removed the tennis ball the interest was gone. And so it was a negative search.

Apartment 4 G

We searched the apartment using the victim recovery dog. No response. Negative search.

Outside perimeter of apartments

We've searched the outer perimeter, there is some interest here but it will take some further examination to see what's going on.

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

So, nothing detected in any other of the apartments in this statement, only 5a, strange that. We know no-one else died in that apartment because the PJ checked. Oh I forget, it must have been the second hand furniture they had in there, that had been in a dead person's house previously titter

by ufercoffy 13.05.11 13:40

Stella wrote:That was not the findings of the Attorney General, it was from a letter SENT TO the Attorney General by the Portuguese Prosecutors, who chose to ignore what was in the files to shelve the case.

Looks like Ringo got it from a newspaper roll

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

by Guest 13.05.11 13:42

Redgoblin wrote:Hi this is my first post to the forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry to butt in, as some of you were talking about the dogs - I wanted to stay within the topic of this thread.

Despite the heartfelt pleas of GM and KM by having their own team investigate "some" of the files. Surely the PJ must have some evidence about the couple /group which they would obviously not want to share with the McCann's, I suppose that evidence could be incriminating and they wouldn't hand that information to private detectives - I assume it would be available to Scotland Yard.

Which raises the question - Why would the McCann's seek this out if they knew it might lead to their own arrests?

a) Either they are completely innocent and have nothing to lose.

b) They don't believe the PJ have anything concrete to pin on them, and by reviewing the files they hope Scotland Yard draws a blank and the case (from a legal and lawful aspect) will be closed.

Hi Redgoblin welcome to the forum welcome

there could hypothetically even be a (c) in that it was a bluff, to keep asking for this in front of the public, knowing or thinking it would never happen?? Just a thought, not saying this is the case.

by Ringo 13.05.11 13:56

Stella wrote:
Ringo wrote:
Stella wrote:

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the
Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.

10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)

Does the above earlier interim report trump the subsequent findings of the Attorney General?

'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

I know who you are now Ringo and no that was not an interim report. It was filed first thing on the Monday morning after the McCann's fled Portugal. No where on the actual document does it state that it was an interim report and you know it.

Begging your pardon, I am not actually a McCann scholar so sometimes I get the terminology wrong - however let me re-phrase the question. Does the report from 2007 actually supercede (either legally or generally) the Attorney General's final report that appeared the following year?

by Ringo 13.05.11 14:00

Dougall wrote:
Ringo wrote: the dogs were clearly led and directed to alert to the car and the soft toy as anyone can see from watching the videos - it was all a complete shambles.

Then you can apply the same logic to state that they were "clearly led" to many other areas where they DIDN'T alert! When I saw the video I saw the handler focussing the dogs' attention on many different spots, they alerted when they detected something, not because the handler wanted them to!

You didn't see the dogs whizz by the first few cars as the handler strolled past them, and then as he stopped by the McCanns car and the dog whized past that one, he called it back - several times - until finally he got an alert out of it? WE must've been watching different videos then.

by Ringo 13.05.11 14:02

Stella wrote:
Ringo wrote:

Does the above earlier interim report trump the subsequent findings of the Attorney General?

'In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects.'

That was not the findings of the Attorney General, it was from a letter SENT TO the Attorney General by the Portuguese Prosecutors, who chose to ignore what was in the files to shelve the case.

The bottom of the letter said;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

Portimão, 21.07.08

The Republic's Prosecutor

(José de Magalhaes e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(signature)

(Joao Melchior Gomes)

"no indications of the practise of any crime"

Quite.

by Ringo 13.05.11 14:05

[quote]

Redgoblin wrote:Hi this is my first post to the forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry to butt in, as some of you were talking about the dogs - I wanted to stay within the topic of this thread.

Despite the heartfelt pleas of GM and KM by having their own team investigate "some" of the files. Surely the PJ must have some evidence about the couple /group which they would obviously not want to share with the McCann's, I suppose that evidence could be incriminating and they wouldn't hand that information to private detectives - I assume it would be available to Scotland Yard.

Which raises the question - Why would the McCann's seek this out if they knew it might lead to their own arrests?

a) Either they are completely innocent and have nothing to lose.

Is the correct answer!

b) They don't believe the PJ have anything concrete to pin on them, and by reviewing the files they hope Scotland Yard draws a blank and the case (from a legal and lawful aspect) will be closed.

The only way they could know for certain that the PJ don't have anything concrete to pin on them is if they are indeed innocent.

by Guest 13.05.11 14:06

Ringo wrote:

Begging your pardon, I am not actually a McCann scholar so sometimes I get the terminology wrong - however let me re-phrase the question. Does the report from 2007 actually supercede (either legally or generally) the Attorney General's final report that appeared the following year?

I don't think you mean the Attorney General's final report do you?

I think you are referring to the PJ final report?

If so, that is a different ball game altogether.

by *~Melody~* 13.05.11 14:07

Ringo wrote:
Dougall wrote:
Ringo wrote: the dogs were clearly led and directed to alert to the car and the soft toy as anyone can see from watching the videos - it was all a complete shambles.

Then you can apply the same logic to state that they were "clearly led" to many other areas where they DIDN'T alert! When I saw the video I saw the handler focussing the dogs' attention on many different spots, they alerted when they detected something, not because the handler wanted them to!

You didn't see the dogs whizz by the first few cars as the handler strolled past them, and then as he stopped by the McCanns car and the dog whized past that one, he called it back - several times - until finally he got an alert out of it? WE must've been watching different videos then.

In the video I saw Eddie didn't put his nose in the air til he got near the McCanns car. He could clearly smell something and was rushing around with his head up indicating he was close. Martin Grime brought Eddie back to the car and tapped various places which didn't interest Eddie. Eddie then barked at the passenger side door sill where the scent was coming from. As he said in his report the air can make the smell circulate and accumulate anywhere, not necessarily where the body was.

by Ringo 13.05.11 14:10

*~Melody~* wrote:
Ringo wrote:
Dougall wrote:
Ringo wrote: the dogs were clearly led and directed to alert to the car and the soft toy as anyone can see from watching the videos - it was all a complete shambles.

Then you can apply the same logic to state that they were "clearly led" to many other areas where they DIDN'T alert! When I saw the video I saw the handler focussing the dogs' attention on many different spots, they alerted when they detected something, not because the handler wanted them to!

You didn't see the dogs whizz by the first few cars as the handler strolled past them, and then as he stopped by the McCanns car and the dog whized past that one, he called it back - several times - until finally he got an alert out of it? WE must've been watching different videos then.

In the video I saw Eddie didn't put his nose in the air til he got near the McCanns car. He could clearly smell something and was rushing around with his head up indicating he was close. Martin Grime brought Eddie back to the car and tapped various places which didn't interest Eddie. Eddie then barked at the passenger side door sill where the scent was coming from. As he said in his report the air can make the smell circulate and accumulate anywhere, not necessarily where the body was.

It's interesting though that Grime stopped by the McCanns car for so long though don't you think? He didnt walk on as he had with the other cars, didn't follow the dog on to the cars that it had run towards - why was that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the car was plastered in posters of Madeleine? Anyway - all now completely irrelevant as no evidence was found.

by Guest 13.05.11 14:11

Quite right Melody [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and welcome.

Latest topics