Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 15:03

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
I use logic and common sense.

You could've fooled me.

The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her.

Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat. Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Now then, if we're looking for a 'common sense' or 'logical' thing to do on 3 May when Madeleine is suddenly abducted, which of these do you choose:

1. Give the police your camera and tell them there's a couple of dozen lovely photos of her on holiday right here in Praia da Luz in your camera(s), to help people know who they're looking for, or

2. Withhold the camera from the police, delete shoals of photos on it, and produce one of her taken a year or more before, somewhere in England?

Please apply principles of 'common sense' and 'logic' when supplying your answer

Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.

You make it sound like police demanded the camera and they refused. Yet you know that didn't happen.

I would expect police to ask me for anything they needed. Would I follow their advice not to involve the media etc, probably not to be honest.
Would you follow the advice of the police to not produce the fact that your daughter has gone missing in case there was a randsom note and then promote a coloboma in an almost immediate campaign which could harm her?

Would you do that to your daughter?

I can't think of another missing child case where it hasn't been all over the news straight away (even more so now with Twitter and Facebook) and it's always been stressed how crucial it is to get details of a missing child out as soon as possible. You've said yourself you'd have released the "last photo" to the media on May 4th!

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 15:07

plebgate wrote:oh please, read all your posts through carefully and come to your own conclusions. I think that in your quest to appear clever, you are actually tying yourself up in knots. My opinion only, but it is becoming quite boring for me so bye.

@stillthinking

Lol, I'm not trying to appear clever . I'm just expressing my point of view like everybody else. It is perfectly possible for searches to continue whilst a photo is being found, and in fact that's what did happen. The searches didn't come to a standstill because every single person was crowded round a camera looking for a photo.

As for boring you... *shrugs*

by Miraflores 09.11.14 15:57

The searches didn't come to a standstill because every single person was crowded round a camera looking for a photo.

What searches were these? The one hour's worth of searching that Kate McCann's book says that they made?

by **PeterMac** 09.11.14 16:36

They used the Last Photo for the begging buckets.

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

by Gaggzy 09.11.14 17:38

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

Wow, there's not much money in the bottom of that bucket.

Ah well, they've certainly made up for that ever since.

by j.rob 09.11.14 18:57

Russell explained in his statement why they ended up with that pic and I've given logical reasons. The main aim was to show people what the girl who had gone missing that night looked like.

----------

But it isn't what she looked like. In that photo used on the poster, Madeleine does not look like she did in the alleged 'last photo' by the swimming pool. She looks quite different and much younger than a nearly four year old.

And why LIE about the coloboma? What would be the purpose of that? I seem to recall that there was a 'missing Madeleine' notice in the doctors' magazine The Lancet which clearly states that she had a coloboma.

Yet Madeleine's passport does not state this. And both parents later said she didn't have a coloboma but merely dark fleks in the eye.

So, I can only assume they used that photo of a girl looking much younger than a nearly four year old because they didn't want the photo to look like Madeleine. And they didn't want anyone to find her.

And I can only presume that that is the reason why the lied about the coloboma. (Although it is possible that there are more complex reasons about the coloboma - perhaps the Madeleine 'stand in' - Madeline - had one? I do think that is a possibility and if that is the case then that would support the theory that the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann was a pre-planned hoax for a staged faked abduction that went wrong or was derailed for some reason.)

Those are really the only conclusions I can come to, I am afraid, given that the McCanns did, allegedly, have a more 'up to date' photo of Madeline taken allegedly on 'the last day'.

by j.rob 09.11.14 18:59

Russell explained in his statement why they ended up with that pic and I've given logical reasons. The main aim was to show people what the girl who had gone missing that night looked like.

--------

So does that mean that the girl who went missing that night was not Madeleine McCann, then? But someone else (Madeline)? And that Madeleine McCann went missing some other time?

That makes sense to me. As much as anything makes sense when it comes to this case.

by Hicks 09.11.14 19:12

PeterMac wrote:They used the Last Photo for the begging buckets.

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

I have had a revelation moment-I think!

I would suggest that the hand writing on the donations box is Kate's based on example in this link.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Please see the Christmas present 'tag' and compare. I think it's one and the same.

Now look at the creche record for May 1st.

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

You will notice that Madeleine (imo) is signed in by Kate's hand at 9.30, BUT the signature is that of GM.
I suggest that Kate forged GM signature to make it look like he had taken Madeleine to the creche, and picked her up at 12.30. Who at the creche would examine the signature? Only that it was signed and seen to be signed. This would give GM an alibi when he may have been elsewhere.

You will also notice that the person who signed in Elizabeth Naylor has -almost the same handwriting as Kate.

I have a thought on why Madeleine was not signed out after 'apparently' being taken back to the creche at 14.30.
It could be that Kate wrote Madeleine's name in the morning ready for the afternoon as she has wrote 'PM' next to Madeleine's name and wrote in the 14.30. This would have been acceptable for the staff at the creche. When needed though this second signing would go some way to prove that Madeleine was at the creche but they had just forgotten to sign her out.

I hope this makes sense. It probably has been pointed out before so apologies if so.

Sorry for going off topic but I just wanted to follow on from the photo above.

by **Nina** 09.11.14 19:29

Hicks wrote:
PeterMac wrote:They used the Last Photo for the begging buckets.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I have had a revelation moment-I think!

I would suggest that the hand writing on the donations box is Kate's based on example in this link.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Please see the Christmas present 'tag' and compare. I think it's one and the same.

Now look at the creche record for May 1st.

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

You will notice that Madeleine (imo) is signed in by Kate's hand at 9.30, BUT the signature is that of GM.
I suggest that Kate forged GM signature to make it look like he had taken Madeleine to the creche, and picked her up at 12.30. Who at the creche would examine the signature? Only that it was signed and seen to be signed. This would give GM an alibi when he may have been elsewhere.

You will also notice that the person who signed in Elizabeth Naylor has -almost the same handwriting as Kate.

I have a thought on why Madeleine was not signed out after 'apparently' being taken back to the creche at 14.30.
It could be that Kate wrote Madeleine's name in the morning ready for the afternoon as she has wrote 'PM' next to Madeleine's name and wrote in the 14.30. This would have been acceptable for the staff at the creche. When needed though this second signing would go some way to prove that Madeleine was at the creche but they had just forgotten to sign her out.

I hope this makes sense. It probably has been pointed out before so apologies if so.

Sorry for going off topic but I just wanted to follow on from the photo above.

And how very exact and clear that writing is, not a wobble through sheer grief at writing Madeleine's name and yes a huge container with a huge notice on it obviously expecting loadsamoney.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 20:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.
@ Stillthinking - That's quite a serious accusation from a fellow-poster and arguably in breach of forum rules.

Please either withdraw that claim now

OR

proivde one clear example of 'a simple error based on a lack of either common sense or logic'

So you're allowed to criticise my logic and common sense but I'm not allowed to do the same back to you? If I've broken forum rules then so have you. People, in glass houses... (and lets not mention the sly asides you and others have made about me on the forum, surely they are "arguably in breach of forum rules"?)

Ok, as requested, the latest examples of you making simple errors:

Declaring that a news article meant Brenda had been sent to a hotel rather than the logical explanation that the police officer had.
Thinking another poster was saying it didn't matter if a photo date had been altered, when it was obvious they were saying the opposite.

Then, of course there's the infamous one... nobody with any common sense would have leafleted the small village where the McCanns lived.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 20:35

Miraflores wrote:

The searches didn't come to a standstill because every single person was crowded round a camera looking for a photo.

What searches were these? The one hour's worth of searching that Kate McCann's book says that they made?

The searches that started from when Madeleine was discovered missing and continued into the early hours. It was Russell who was at one point trying to get pics from the camera. As I said, this didn't stop people searching. This is all a bit of a pointless argument because the searches didn't stop so that a photo could be found.The two things were happening at the same time.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 20:45

j.rob wrote:Russell explained in his statement why they ended up with that pic and I've given logical reasons. The main aim was to show people what the girl who had gone missing that night looked like.

----------

But it isn't what she looked like. In that photo used on the poster, Madeleine does not look like she did in the alleged 'last photo' by the swimming pool. She looks quite different and much younger than a nearly four year old.

And why LIE about the coloboma? What would be the purpose of that? I seem to recall that there was a 'missing Madeleine' notice in the doctors' magazine The Lancet which clearly states that she had a coloboma.

Yet Madeleine's passport does not state this. And both parents later said she didn't have a coloboma but merely dark fleks in the eye.

So, I can only assume they used that photo of a girl looking much younger than a nearly four year old because they didn't want the photo to look like Madeleine. And they didn't want anyone to find her.

And I can only presume that that is the reason why the lied about the coloboma. (Although it is possible that there are more complex reasons about the coloboma - perhaps the Madeleine 'stand in' - Madeline - had one? I do think that is a possibility and if that is the case then that would support the theory that the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann was a pre-planned hoax for a staged faked abduction that went wrong or was derailed for some reason.)

Those are really the only conclusions I can come to, I am afraid, given that the McCanns did, allegedly, have a more 'up to date' photo of Madeline taken allegedly on 'the last day'.

I don't think she looks that different.

Thank you for explaining why you thought they had used that photo though. That's all I was trying to ascertain.

If Madeleine was deceased by that point then it doesn't make sense for anybody to deliberately release a photo that meant she wouldn't be found... because she wouldn't be found (alive) anyway.

Re the coloboma, Madeleine did have a part of her iris where the colour was almost black that would identify her. Whether it was referred to as a coloboma or a dark fleck in her eye it was something that was actually there and would identify her easily (if of course she were still around to be identified).

by plebgate 09.11.14 20:51

Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.
@ Stillthinking - That's quite a serious accusation from a fellow-poster and arguably in breach of forum rules.

Please either withdraw that claim now

OR

proivde one clear example of 'a simple error based on a lack of either common sense or logic'

So you're allowed to criticise my logic and common sense but I'm not allowed to do the same back to you? If I've broken forum rules then so have you. People, in glass houses... (and lets not mention the sly asides you and others have made about me on the forum, surely they are "arguably in breach of forum rules"?)

Ok, as requested, the latest examples of you making simple errors:

Declaring that a news article meant Brenda had been sent to a hotel rather than the logical explanation that the police officer had.
Thinking another poster was saying it didn't matter if a photo date had been altered, when it was obvious they were saying the opposite.

Then, of course there's the infamous one... nobody with any common sense would have leafleted the small village where the McCanns lived.

So folks, there we have it. Couldn't resist. I thought you were supposed to be pointing out simple errors on the FORUM.

As I said before, trying to be clever and tying yourself up in knots.

by juliet 09.11.14 20:53

Why was a photo so important that night? How many three year olds were lost in PdL that needed identification? The question for me is whether the photos came ready printed in the McCann luggage.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 20:54

plebgate wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.
@ Stillthinking - That's quite a serious accusation from a fellow-poster and arguably in breach of forum rules.

Please either withdraw that claim now

OR

proivde one clear example of 'a simple error based on a lack of either common sense or logic'

So you're allowed to criticise my logic and common sense but I'm not allowed to do the same back to you? If I've broken forum rules then so have you. People, in glass houses... (and lets not mention the sly asides you and others have made about me on the forum, surely they are "arguably in breach of forum rules"?)

Ok, as requested, the latest examples of you making simple errors:

Declaring that a news article meant Brenda had been sent to a hotel rather than the logical explanation that the police officer had.
Thinking another poster was saying it didn't matter if a photo date had been altered, when it was obvious they were saying the opposite.

Then, of course there's the infamous one... nobody with any common sense would have leafleted the small village where the McCanns lived.
So folks, there we have it. Couldn't resist. I thought you were supposed to be pointing out simple errors on the FORUM.

As I said before, trying to be clever and tying yourself up in knots.

Show me where Tony specified on the forum Plebgate

by sallypelt 09.11.14 20:57

juliet wrote:Why was a photo so important that night? How many three year olds were lost in PdL that needed identification? The question for me is whether the photos came ready printed in the McCann luggage.

Not according to Amy Tierney:

Has made previous statements in May last year.

Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter.

When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on 'Kodak Xtra Life ' paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.

When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.

She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.

As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a 'Kodak', model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.

In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer.

No more is said. She signs the statement together with the interpreter

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 20:57

juliet wrote:Why was a photo so important that night? How many three year olds were lost in PdL that needed identification? The question for me is whether the photos came ready printed in the McCann luggage.

Because if you're going round asking if people have seen somebody it helps to have a photo of them? As we know, there were other young kids being carried around at that time of night.

As for them bringing the prints with them in their luggage, read the files,or even the quotes posted here, they explain where the pics came from.

by plebgate 09.11.14 21:00

Oh dear oh dear here we go again, having to specify for your benefit.

In your opinion TB should not have leafleted the village, but why bring that up when discussing what is being said on the forum.

I think why you are here has been revealed and I shall not be replying to any of your posts in future.

by juliet 09.11.14 21:01

Sally, wasn't this from a statement in 2008? Didn't you find an earlier statement which didn't say anything about photos but went on about going to the apartment? (Forgive me if I am wrong).

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 21:12

plebgate wrote:Oh dear oh dear here we go again, having to specify for your benefit.

In your opinion TB should not have leafleted the village, but why bring that up when discussing what is being said on the forum.

I think why you are here has been revealed and I shall not be replying to any of your posts in future.

I was asked for examples, I gave them. Don't ask a question if you're not going to like the answer.

I brought up the leafleting as an example of lack of common sense. I was asked a question and I answered it, there were no restrictions on what examples I had to give

As for your final sentence, please do share why I'm here. Of course you could just ask me and I'd explain that I'm here because the case intrigues me. I hadn't posted about it for years. I was looking for a similar forum to the one I used to post on, where points could be discussed rationally, even if not everybody agreed. I thought I'd found such a forum here but from the minute I joined and expressed a differing point of view I've had certain members, you and Tony included, making little side comments about me. If you treat all people with differing opinions like that I guess not many stick around and instead you have a forum with everybody reinforcing each others views, no matter how fantastical they are, instead of challenging them. Such a shame!

by j.rob 09.11.14 21:47

When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.

She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.

As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a 'Kodak', model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.

In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer.
---------

Amy maybe a little bit of a 'hot potato' in this case?

Still, it would be completely in keeping with TM's modus operandi that they would deliberately target young/naive/ impressionable/gullible/corrupt people into their rather unpleasant spiders' webs, imo!

(Brenda's tweets seemed to be starting to focus on the role of the nanny Amy......?)

I guess it would not have been that difficult to track down Amy's boyfriend in France and The Computer.....would it?

You know - given that this case has cost the UK tax-payer £££££ - I mean, the ferry over to France and a chat with the alleged boyfriend of a nanny and a little look at a computer......how much money might that have 'saved' the UK tax-payer? Money that could have been spent on much more useful things than ~~covering up~~ a simply ridiculous HOAX

What a load of old shit happens

this case is.......grrrrrrr.....

by juliet 09.11.14 21:54

Brenda Leyland was tweeting about (to?) Amy Tierney in her last weeks I understand. I think the story was that the printer had been stolen in France.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 22:14

Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.
@ Stillthinking - That's quite a serious accusation from a fellow-poster and arguably in breach of forum rules.

Please either withdraw that claim now

OR

proivde one clear example of 'a simple error based on a lack of either common sense or logic'

REPLY: Thank you for your response.

So you're allowed to criticise my logic and common sense but I'm not allowed to do the same back to you? If I've broken forum rules then so have you.

REPLY: Actually, crticising your logic in one particular post is quite different from your claim, which was: 'regularly makes simple errors based on a lack of common sense or logic.

People, in glass houses... (and let's not mention the sly asides you and others have made about me on the forum, surely they are "arguably in breach of forum rules"?)

REPLY: I don't know how many 'sly asides' I'm supposed to have made about you, but - yes - a sly, snidey or sarcastic post can equally be attacking another poster. Though a lot may depend on whether the sarcasm was justified...it often has been, if you look at some of those who were cleared out in August

Ok, as requested, the latest examples of you making simple errors:

Declaring that a news article meant Brenda had been sent to a hotel rather than the logical explanation that the police officer had.
Thinking another poster was saying it didn't matter if a photo date had been altered, when it was obvious they were saying the opposite.

REPLY: Two examples of misunderstanding things, both of which I would suggest were not put entirely clearly in the first place - so, NOT examples of 'simple errors based on a lack of common sense or logic'

Then, of course there's the infamous one... nobody with any common sense would have leafleted the small village where the McCanns lived.

REPLY: An error of judgment, perhaps, but not of 'lack of common sense or logic'.

AND...one thing stuck in my mind from your previous posts. That was where you wrote, quote:

"I don't rule out abduction completely.."

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 22:29

Stillthinking wrote:
As for your final sentence, please do share why I'm here. Of course you could just ask me and I'd explain that I'm here because the case intrigues me. I hadn't posted about it for years. I was looking for a similar forum to the one I used to post on, where points could be discussed rationally, even if not everybody agreed. I thought I'd found such a forum here, but from the minute I joined and expressed a differing point of view I've had certain members, you and Tony included, making little snide comments about me. If you treat all people with differing opinions like that I guess not many stick around and instead you have a forum with everybody reinforcing each other's views, no matter how fantastical they are, instead of challenging them. Such a shame!

Your post was addressed to plebgate, but I will just comment on the bolded bit above.

This forum has absolutely no track record of 'everybody reinforcing each other's views'.

Look for example at the 'Smithman' debates - plenty of views on all sides, and polls which show that opinion is divided.

Similarly, the important 'Last Photo' debate - different views, strongly expressed. And questionable views and statements being strongly challenged. That's the way it should be.

One thing that unites nearly everybody on this forum is a desire to 'solve', or see found, the puzzle of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

Those that come here for that reason have a range of different views and theories, which is fine, depending on the extent to which they are evidenced.

But we have had a string of people over the years on here who can be described variously as disruptors, people who use diversion tactics, jokers, trolls and time-wasters.

We don't want any of those on here.

The numbers visiting here daily are a testament to the forum's success - and people don't read here just to get the same old ideas and theories.

You are welcome to post your ideas here if you can justify them. Speaking personally, I am not sure that you have come on here to help solve the mystery of what really happened to Madeleine.

I invite you to prove me wrong

by sallypelt 09.11.14 22:37

juliet wrote:Sally, wasn't this from a statement in 2008? Didn't you find an earlier statement which didn't say anything about photos but went on about going to the apartment? (Forgive me if I am wrong).

Correct, Juliet. I found that rather puzzling, but there could be a perfectly good reason why that is the case. nails

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 23:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.
@ Stillthinking - That's quite a serious accusation from a fellow-poster and arguably in breach of forum rules.

Please either withdraw that claim now

OR

proivde one clear example of 'a simple error based on a lack of either common sense or logic'

REPLY: Thank you for your response.

So you're allowed to criticise my logic and common sense but I'm not allowed to do the same back to you? If I've broken forum rules then so have you.

REPLY: Actually, crticising your logic in one particular post is quite different from your claim, which was: 'regularly makes simple errors based on a lack of common sense or logic.

People, in glass houses... (and let's not mention the sly asides you and others have made about me on the forum, surely they are "arguably in breach of forum rules"?)

REPLY: I don't know how many 'sly asides' I'm supposed to have made about you, but - yes - a sly, snidey or sarcastic post can equally be attacking another poster. Though a lot may depend on whether the sarcasm was justified...it often has been, if you look at some of those who were cleared out in August

Ok, as requested, the latest examples of you making simple errors:

Declaring that a news article meant Brenda had been sent to a hotel rather than the logical explanation that the police officer had.
Thinking another poster was saying it didn't matter if a photo date had been altered, when it was obvious they were saying the opposite.

REPLY: Two examples of misunderstanding things, both of which I would suggest were not put entirely clearly in the first place - so, NOT examples of 'simple errors based on a lack of common sense or logic'

Then, of course there's the infamous one... nobody with any common sense would have leafleted the small village where the McCanns lived.

REPLY: An error of judgment, perhaps, but not of 'lack of common sense or logic'.

AND...one thing stuck in my mind from your previous posts. That was where you wrote, quote:

"I don't rule out abduction completely.."

Actually my full post had said something like...I thought accidental death followed by a cover up by panicked parents was the most likely explanation of what had happened. I then added that I didn't rule out abduction completely but would be shocked if it turned out to be what had happened. I also gave the dogs findings and Kate's refusal to answer questions as the reasons I had come to that conclusion. I know I've also posted that I think the chances of it being an abduction are remote. Interesting that the only part you remember is me saying that I don't completely rule out abduction. Is that alone reason enough for people(including you) to be suspicious of me?

Now we've both criticised each other's logic and/or common sense and you and others have made digs at me. I wasn't here in August and have no idea who was cleared out or whether the clear out was justified. But directing questions about me to everyone but me, eg "I wonder if stillthinking..." or WTTE stinks of schoolyard bullying tactics, trying to create an "us and them" situation, where one person is singled out and everyone else is encouraged to pile in. (If you wonder what I think about something , ask me directly)
Same with the comments, (speaking generally here) hinting at people having agendas or implying that people have posted under a different ID or that they're trying to stop discussion of something because it's close to the truth. I've only been here a short time and have experienced all of those things directed at me. It's just tiresome more than anything and if that's how others have been treated in the past when they dare to disagree, then it's a real shame. Maybe my expectations of the forum were too high.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 23:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
As for your final sentence, please do share why I'm here. Of course you could just ask me and I'd explain that I'm here because the case intrigues me. I hadn't posted about it for years. I was looking for a similar forum to the one I used to post on, where points could be discussed rationally, even if not everybody agreed. I thought I'd found such a forum here, but from the minute I joined and expressed a differing point of view I've had certain members, you and Tony included, making little snide comments about me. If you treat all people with differing opinions like that I guess not many stick around and instead you have a forum with everybody reinforcing each other's views, no matter how fantastical they are, instead of challenging them. Such a shame!
Your post was addressed to plebgate, but I will just comment on the bolded bit above.

This forum has absolutely no track record of 'everybody reinforcing each other's views'.

Look for example at the 'Smithman' debates - plenty of views on all sides, and polls which show that opinion is divided.

Similarly, the important 'Last Photo' debate - different views, strongly expressed. And questionable views and statements being strongly challenged. That's the way it should be.

One thing that unites nearly everybody on this forum is a desire to 'solve', or see found, the puzzle of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

Those that come here for that reason have a range of different views and theories, which is fine, depending on the extent to which they are evidenced.

But we have had a string of people over the years on here who can be described variously as disruptors, people who use diversion tactics, jokers, trolls and time-wasters.

We don't want any of those on here.

The numbers visiting here daily are a testament to the forum's success - and people don't read here just to get the same old ideas and theories.

You are welcome to post your ideas here if you can justify them. Speaking personally, I am not sure that you have come on here to help solve the mystery of what really happened to Madeleine.

I invite you to prove me wrong

Then why do you think I am here?

You may think you welcome all theories but I've given examples in my last post of what I've witnessed and experienced personally on here and I doubt I'd have got that reaction had I arrived saying I agreed that Madeleine was dead before the 3rd, that the last photo was dodgy and the creche records had been faked. I'm seeing similar things directed at atomicpeanut for having an unpopular view.

I realise that I am in a different position to others in that I've had a long break from discussing the case, and so to me the changes that have taken place in beliefs over that period of time are startling. To use the boiling frogs metaphor.. I feel like I'm the frog that has just been dropped into a pan of boiling water, and jumped out in shock thinking WTF? whereas the pan is full of other frogs who started off in a pan of nice cool water that was heated up gradually to boiling point, without them noticing.

by Angelique 10.11.14 3:42

"When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks."

I am no whiz kid regarding memory "cards" from cameras or USB sticks - but cards are shoved into a lap top and sticks into a desk computer. I recall that memory "cards" did need an "adaptor" to read when inserted into a lap top which could then print off to a printer or load onto a USB stick. But memory cards and USB sticks are two entirely different things.

I recall vaguely having read a discussion about this before.

Is the confusion deliberate?

by AlexBG 10.11.14 17:20

I don't mean to butt in here or anything, but even if the last photo were faked and/or taken on a different day, it isn't necessarily proof of anything. It may simply have been done to boost levels of publicity for the case (and donations) weeks after the incident. I think both 'pro' and 'anti' camps would agree that the McCs wanted lots of publicity.

If you ask me, the McCs knew they were almost entirely immune from prosecution from day one; they didn't feel vulnerable enough to bother creating fake photos. Besides, their in-group pact buddy had already provided the alibi they needed with regard to Madeleine having been present and alive that afternoon.

All just my opinion.

by ultimaThule 10.11.14 18:20

You can butt in anytime,Alex - everyone else does big grin

If, as many suspect, the 'Last Photo' was shown to be photoshopped or taken on a different day, it would give the lie to any claim that this particular photographic image can serve as proof that Madeleine was alive and well and dipping her toes into the icy cold pool alongside her father and sister at some time on the afternoon of Thursday 3 May 2007.

While the McCanns appeared to rapidly become confident that they would not be prosecuted, if you study footage of their first appearance in front of the worldwide press on the evening of Friday 4 May 2007 you will see ~~2 rabbits~~ a couple caught in the headlights with long practised public speaker Gerry almost stumbling over his words while reading from a script, while his spouse looked for all the world as if she was expecting to feel the hand of a PJ officer on her shoulder at any minute. .