Re: My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago

by jd 07.11.11 14:42

Cheshire Cat wrote:
The Gaspar statements as well as Yvonne Martins statements worry me greatly. Particularly as the Gaspar statements were held back by the Leicester Police. The Gaspar statements reveal a family holiday in a big house, for K.Gaspar a genuine family holiday and a chance to relax and enjoy the warmth of Majorca. However, within that group, Mrs Gaspar observed behaviour that would set alarm bells ringing when Madeleine disappeared.

The most alarming thing with the Gaspar statements apart the statements themselves, is the fact that Leicestershire police never told anyone about them until the case was shelved in Portugal. Thats 6 months later! You seriously have to question why any police investigation/police force would hold back statements like this. This could be classed as hindering the PJ in their investigations

by happychick 07.11.11 14:44

My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 Bb112

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t694p105-statement-from-profiler-pat-brown

According to Bonnybraes, in between frothing at the mouth, she says professionals do not join sites like this.

Are you listening Mike Gunnill? You obviously aren't professional either according to Bonnybraes even though she allowed you to join her site rotfl

by Guest 07.11.11 15:53

It would be interesting to know what Dayle Hinman thinks about this case. I wonder if she has read the files etc. Here is a link to her facebook page,

https://www.facebook.com/people/Dayle-Hinman/1440444768

by **PeterMac** 07.11.11 15:56

Have just come back to this site, and seen the reactions to my reaction.
I intended no offence ‘jd’ and am sorry if my remark was taken as such.

It seems to me that there are several pieces of evidence in this case which simply cannot be overlooked, and that therefore any theory must include them, or explain them adequately.
Let me elaborate,
In any major enquiry there are bound to be many instance of mistakes, of red herrings, of untruths told and of downright lies put into statements.
There is a range
Simple irrelevant factors, Example - a broken window in the house which has been burgled, which it turns out was already broken and entry was in fact through the unlocked back door
Simple mistake - witness thought she saw A, when in fact it was not A, who has an alibi.
Innocent untruths - witness places himself at a location, when in fact he was not there because he was having an affair with his secretary at the material time
Not so innocent untruths - person denies being involved when in fact he was.

And so on. The list and the reasons for them are long.

But there is always the need to explain these so that one can focus on the few facts which are relevant. Not for nothing is the instruction to investigative teams deemed TIE ‘Trace, Interview and Eliminate’ “and when you have eliminated everything and everyone else, what remains must be the truth.” as someone once said.

Some facts are very difficult to explain away. If your fingerprint is found on an item, you have touched it, your fingerprint has been ‘planted’, or a gross and crass error has been made by the forensic team.
Similarly with your DNA. You were either in contact or there has been cross contamination from another object.
But my point is that the “strong” evidential facts do need to be included and explained from an early stage in the development of any theory. They are the corner stones in that reconstruction

Fingerprints, DNA, and evidence from dogs fall, in my view, into the category of Strong evidence. As do CCTV images, documents, phone calls and messages, emails and so on.
JT’s alleged sighting does not. It may be considered Weak, and even dismissed as invention once the many discrepancies have been analysed.

So my reaction was to a theory which tries not to include the Strong evidence (in my view) of the dogs, which must point to a body having been in various places in the apartment at least 90 minutes after death.
Weak evidence like locked and unlocked doors, because they rest merely on uncorroborated statements by people, (many of which are in fact hearsay under English law and would be inadmissible in court proceedings), can be interpreted much more liberally when one is trying to find the best fit to what little we actually know.

I do not dismiss any theory out of hand, not should any of us, but it is only by picking away at each one "until it bleeds" that we may get closer to an understanding of what fate befell a little English girl in Portugal 4 years ago.

Let's keep going. The truth is out there somewhere, and it doesn't get dissolved by rain.

by **PeterMac** 07.11.11 15:58

happychick wrote:
According to Bonnybraes, in between frothing at the mouth, she says professionals do not join sites like this.

But loyal and trusted supporters of the McCanns, including one who claims to be sponsored by Carter-Ruck, join sites like hers ?

by aiyoyo 07.11.11 16:00

jd wrote:Thank you Pat for coming onto our forum and giving us information on your up and coming case against the McCanns. I think you will know that 99% of members here are level headed people who are educated, fair, and seek justice for Maddie and for freedom of speech (we get the few odd trolls). All of us are right behind you every step of the way and would love to be in the courtroom with you in February. What the McCanns did to you via carter ruck is nothing short of trying suppress your freedom of speech (like to us and to Tony in particular), not to mention they stopped your course of business, and you have no idea what a good thing you are doing with this. Their nasty underhand tactics and abuse of their positions to stop anyone with an opinion has to be challenged. Your case is very important and you have to break these people who are trying to stamp down on people and our libertieswith their money and power. Its what I call a subtle form of dictatorship without the armoury.

hmmm....since when they use their own money for anything? I think you mean public donated fund, which I believe they used for paying two mortgages as well as their travel costs and legal costs of course

You won't need me to say this but I will, just be careful with what you say on the internet before the case. These so called powers are watching and will use anything you say against you in court so make sure of your words. And keep your cards up your sleeve and don't give any indication of them until it is time in court and only in court

To the pro mccanns on forums like JAYTK, they are not real people so are not worth spending a second of time on. They are either kids or uneducated ones, who if they came to you for a job you would never ever give them one as they are not capable. They are ones who cannot get on the real world and in real life, they have no idea what real life is about, their only outlet is to expel their venom and hatred on the internet and the more popular the subject they can expel their hatred on, the more they feel in some way important & get their kicks. They are not able to get their kicks in any other way

I think you have said clearly enough you will not settle for an out of court settlement and you are not interested in this, you are determined to seek justice for Maddie, for freedom of speech and for your own personal business reasons. Personally, I think you have to get both mccanns on their own in the box. Until now they have been protected by ring of powers of the UK, but in a courtroom they will be vulnerable on their own which they have proven on many occasions. Don't let them get away with what Dr Conrad Murray has been doing in the Jackson case, letting his lawyers speak for him. They will twist, lie and distort anything as they are desperate nasty creatures. You have to get the mccanns themselves in that box on their own, with your lawyer they will crumble as they cannot deal with the pressure of the lies by themselves and you will get the to the truth

One final thing, I understand your 4 reasons for the search fund you have set up. But I think in your search it would be a good idea to also bare in mind that this scam was pre set up before the holiday. There is more than enough evidence to support this except for the dogs, and if the real Maddie was ever there on that particular holiday. I think you will find a lot of answers & success by investigating the directors of the Madeleine Fund

by aiyoyo 07.11.11 16:22

PeterMac wrote:
happychick wrote:
According to Bonnybraes, in between frothing at the mouth, she says professionals do not join sites like this.
But loyal and trusted supporters of the McCanns, including one who claims to be sponsored by Carter-Ruck, join sites like hers ?

The saying birds of the same feathers flock together comes to mind. Since professionals join us we must be respectable. No wonders those nutters are jealous.

by jd 07.11.11 18:13

Thank you Petermac...apology accepted

I totally agree with 'Fingerprints, DNA, and evidence from dogs fall, in my view, into the category of Strong evidence. As do CCTV images, documents, phone calls and messages, emails and so on.'. There is no denying this. A lot of this would fall into my theory except for the dogs. One thing I know for certain as I can do, is that Maddie didn't die in the apartment on 3rd May 2007. If it was not pre planned in the UK before that holiday, then she died before May 3rd during the holiday sometime. We need to keep picking away till the truth unravels itself

aiyoyo - 'with their money' I was referring to the so called powers that be, not the Mccanns specifically, and the rich people in general who try to use libel to stop freedom of speech

by Bebootje 08.11.11 10:05

PeterMac wrote:Have just come back to this site, and seen the reactions to my reaction.
I intended no offence ‘jd’ and am sorry if my remark was taken as such.

It seems to me that there are several pieces of evidence in this case which simply cannot be overlooked, and that therefore any theory must include them, or explain them adequately.
Let me elaborate,
In any major enquiry there are bound to be many instance of mistakes, of red herrings, of untruths told and of downright lies put into statements.
There is a range
Simple irrelevant factors, Example - a broken window in the house which has been burgled, which it turns out was already broken and entry was in fact through the unlocked back door
Simple mistake - witness thought she saw A, when in fact it was not A, who has an alibi.
Innocent untruths - witness places himself at a location, when in fact he was not there because he was having an affair with his secretary at the material time
Not so innocent untruths - person denies being involved when in fact he was.

And so on. The list and the reasons for them are long.

But there is always the need to explain these so that one can focus on the few facts which are relevant. Not for nothing is the instruction to investigative teams deemed TIE ‘Trace, Interview and Eliminate’ “and when you have eliminated everything and everyone else, what remains must be the truth.” as someone once said.

Some facts are very difficult to explain away. If your fingerprint is found on an item, you have touched it, your fingerprint has been ‘planted’, or a gross and crass error has been made by the forensic team.
Similarly with your DNA. You were either in contact or there has been cross contamination from another object.
But my point is that the “strong” evidential facts do need to be included and explained from an early stage in the development of any theory. They are the corner stones in that reconstruction

Fingerprints, DNA, and evidence from dogs fall, in my view, into the category of Strong evidence. As do CCTV images, documents, phone calls and messages, emails and so on.
JT’s alleged sighting does not. It may be considered Weak, and even dismissed as invention once the many discrepancies have been analysed.

So my reaction was to a theory which tries not to include the Strong evidence (in my view) of the dogs, which must point to a body having been in various places in the apartment at least 90 minutes after death.
Weak evidence like locked and unlocked doors, because they rest merely on uncorroborated statements by people, (many of which are in fact hearsay under English law and would be inadmissible in court proceedings), can be interpreted much more liberally when one is trying to find the best fit to what little we actually know.

I do not dismiss any theory out of hand, not should any of us, but it is only by picking away at each one "until it bleeds" that we may get closer to an understanding of what fate befell a little English girl in Portugal 4 years ago.

Let's keep going. The truth is out there somewhere, and it doesn't get dissolved by rain.

Very good post PM and I fully agree with you. For a lot of the findings there can be an innocent explanation. It is dangerous to use those as elements for a theory, cause they are blurring what really happened.
My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 50899

For Pat who is determined to find justice for Maddie. Which we all want, but don't have the expertise to do so. I've read the superb women in crime article Pat, which leaves me to just one conclusion based on the curious behaviour of the McCanns not cooperating to the search of their daughter and are sueing each and everyone with a different opinion: or they are stupid and very bad advised, or they are guilty of covering op the death of their daughter. No need to say I believe the latter.
I'm convinced with people like you we will finally find out what exactly happened to Maddie maybe sooner than we all think.

by pennylane 08.11.11 10:34

Excellent post PeterMac My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 351181

by russiandoll 08.11.11 12:24

I must be very naive for a smart woman, when I read the vile abusive posts about Pat Brown I was truly shocked. Can people not be critical and negative about something or someone without resorting to personal abuse? It demeans those sites to include posts like that and do not their admin ensure that offensive material is removed? The stuff about G Amaral is unbelievable. It is like kids in the playground on two sites in particular, JATYK and justiceformccannfam......[ its the vanished child who need justice surely? Have her parents had any charges laid against them? In what way do they require justice?]
I am so glad to read that Pat Brown is taking legal action. As for our debates, there are bound to be disagreements because there is so much material to wade through and some of us will give more weight than others to certain elements, however that Occams razor is a pretty good example of the way to go. And Peter Mac made some excellent points.
I tend to think that beneath all the murk and mystery there lies a simple truth about what happened to young Madeleine, I think the complexities have been created by people surrounding her.

by Buildersbum 08.11.11 12:36

Oh dear!! the McCanns certainly have a tiger by the tail in you Pat......I hope you help Maddy get the justice she deserves.

Gerry and Kate just can't stop their Carter Rucking,,, well that was until they came across you Pat....

Mr Amarals arm's are tied imo, but yours are not they are flapping like an Golden Eagle.....Go Girl and Good Luck My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 410353720

by happychick 08.11.11 13:00

russiandoll wrote:It demeans those sites to include posts like that and do not their admin ensure that offensive material is removed?

Bonnybraes is admin. She's the one who writes most of the awful posts and her 'sock' Lily answers her Shocked

by Guest 08.11.11 13:18

Some time ago here the question was asked if there are any intelligent pro McCann sites where the various issues can be debated sensibly rather than abuse being hurled at anyone who disagrees. Nobody could find one and this is still the case today. I agree with what Russian Doll said, the level of abuse is something to be expected from children. I also found the more extreme Michael Jackson fans (at the time of the allegations of child abuse) to be on the same level. As for Bonnybraes, she is one scary lady! Russian Doll, you may not know that she used to host a McCann sceptic website but then discovered that her "talents" were better served with what she does now.

by aiyoyo 08.11.11 14:01

happychick wrote:
russiandoll wrote:It demeans those sites to include posts like that and do not their admin ensure that offensive material is removed?

Bonnybraes is admin. She's the one who writes most of the awful posts and her 'sock' Lily answers her

Talking to herself in other words - stark barking crazy mad!

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 08.11.11 14:03

Marian wrote: As for Bonnybraes, she is one scary lady! Russian Doll, you may not know that she used to host a McCann sceptic website but then discovered that her "talents" were better served with what she does now.

Indeed Marian. Here's a few posts just as a reminder, from when the chameleon Bonny Braes was in her Mccann hating period, lest we forget. Tut tut tut, such libelous statements from BB! How very embarrassing for her.

http://marypatpowexposed.blogspot.com/2011/08/life-of-internet-stalker.html

by Buildersbum 08.11.11 14:08

Daisy wrote:
Marian wrote: As for Bonnybraes, she is one scary lady! Russian Doll, you may not know that she used to host a McCann sceptic website but then discovered that her "talents" were better served with what she does now.

Indeed marian. Here's a few posts just as a reminder from when the chameleon Bonny Braes was in her Mccann hating period, lest we forget. Tut tut tut, such libelous statements BB!

[url=http://marypatpowexposed.blogspot.com/2011/08/life-of-internet-stalker.html

http://marypatpowexposed.blogspot.com/2011/08/life-of-internet-stalker.html[/quote[/url]]

Wow well done that Lady, powerful stuff, wonder if BB knows you have C&P brillaint Daisy My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 636506

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 08.11.11 14:39

Buildersbum wrote:

http://marypatpowexposed.blogspot.com/2011/08/life-of-internet-stalker.html[/quote]

Wow well done that Lady, powerful stuff, wonder if BB knows you have C&P brillaint Daisy

I don't think Pat Brown need worry about Bonny Braes (aka BB1, aka Lily, aka Mary Pow etc...) and crew Buildersbum. My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 110921

They can rattle their cages and stomp & shout as loud as they like, NO ONE in their right mind is going to take them seriously.

by aiyoyo 08.11.11 15:00

Daisy wrote:
Buildersbum wrote:

http://marypatpowexposed.blogspot.com/2011/08/life-of-internet-stalker.html[/quote]

Wow well done that Lady, powerful stuff, wonder if BB knows you have C&P brillaint Daisy

I don't think Pat Brown need worry about Bonny Braes (aka BB1, aka Lily, aka Mary Pow etc...) and crew Buildersbum. They can rattle their cages and stomp & shout as loud as they like, NO ONE in their right mind is going to take them seriously.

Since mccanns want people to read their bewk and start searching, the burning question is: why are BB1 and socks upset now that Pat is bending backward and embarking on the search herself. She should be over the moon really and shouting for joy now that her cult leader kate is getting her wish..
Instead she's ranting and puking vernoms. Could it be she knows Maddie is not findable (alive) and when the mccanns face justice bipolar bb1 will have to flush her face down the toilet?

by rainbow-fairy 08.11.11 21:22

Just wanted to say Pat I am 100% behind you, I'm sure most of us here are. I admire your dedication to justice for MBM, and your tenacity in standing up to these two cowards.
They have poked many snakes with their Carter-Ruck sticks but not suffered serious injury. I'm truly hoping you'll turn out to be more venomous! Black mamba would do nicely, LOL Wink

I wish there was more I could do. So much luck Pat. I'd love to be physically there in court with you in February but its unlikely to happen. But I can say, with 150% certainty, I WILL BE THERE IN SPIRIT - go go go Pat Brown Wink

by pennylane 08.11.11 21:38

It would be very interesting if Pat could seek out the American actress who was hired to play Kate McCann in the McCanns Mockumentary, and inquire why her particular role ended up on the cutting room floor?

by rainbow-fairy 08.11.11 22:00

pennylane wrote:It would be very interesting if Pat could seek out the American actress who was hired to play Kate McCann in the McCanns Mockumentary, and inquire why her particular role ended up on the cutting room floor?

Wouldn't it just, pennylane?!? I always wonder why Kate didn't do it herself? I think maybe she couldn't bring herself to 're-enact' something she knew to be laughably false...

by Cheshire Cat 08.11.11 22:04

rainbow-fairy wrote:Just wanted to say Pat I am 100% behind you, I'm sure most of us here are. I admire your dedication to justice for MBM, and your tenacity in standing up to these two cowards.
They have poked many snakes with their Carter-Ruck sticks but not suffered serious injury. I'm truly hoping you'll turn out to be more venomous! Black mamba would do nicely, LOL
I wish there was more I could do. So much luck Pat. I'd love to be physically there in court with you in February but its unlikely to happen. But I can say, with 150% certainty, I WILL BE THERE IN SPIRIT - go go go Pat Brown

Great post rainbow-fairy: Pat Brown we salute you!

My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 636506

by rainbow-fairy 08.11.11 23:28

Why oh why oh why did I do it? WHY? WhatEVER possessed me?!? I only clicked on the link to JATYK - Mad Bren is still spouting about a certain 'Englandshire couple' who 'were pronounced innocent by the Attorney of Foreign Countries' nonsense. Have ANY of them actually read the WHOLE of the archiving despatch??? Yes, the McCann's are innocent in the fact they have not (yet) been charged of a criminal offence BUT an archiving despatch CANNOT PRONOUNCE ABSOLUTE INDEFINITE INNOCENCE. Rather it actually states quite clearly that by their refusal to co-operate with a PJ investigation they ultimately stalled they FAILED TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE! Clear enough for you, BR???
Also, hinting that Pat Brown has an alcohol problem which will lose her the case - er, WTF? If she has, it's no more your business to mention it than it is ours when we talk of the 14 bottles of Tapas wine drunk by the T9 in 11/2 hrs. We're nasty to allude to that apparently. Once again, one rule for them, etc etc.
Its the last time. Whatever the subject I'm not going to pollute my brain with their petty nasty nonsense!

Oh PS: are you all aware that body language and forensic linguistic analysis is useless and 'on par with medieval witch hunting'??? They truly are nutty over that there forum Wink

by jd 08.11.11 23:47

LOL Rainbow Fairy!!! Just laugh at them....I love the bit they are trying to insinuate that Pat is an alcoholic (with no proof), when their beloved doctors were getting sloshed on new zealand wine every night whilst leaving their kids on their own in an unlocked apartment!! who then got abducted as they drank away behind a non see through plastic covered restaurant....and they worry about Pat..absolute classic, this is so ridiculous its made my night!! thank you

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 09.11.11 0:47

I agree rainbow fairy, enter that cesspit at your own risk. Even just a few minutes spent there lowers one's vibes. But, tis a guilty pleasure to dip in & out right now. My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 160807

They're really getting their knickers in a such a twist over this whole Pat Brown affair. I agree with JD, laugh at em! It's hilarious watching them working up such a lather & spitting feathers. My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago - Page 2 609562

by aiyoyo 09.11.11 5:32

Daisy wrote:I agree rainbow fairy, enter that cesspit at your own risk. Even just a few minutes spent there lowers one's vibes. But, tis a guilty pleasure to dip in & out right now. They're really getting their knickers in a such a twist over this whole Pat Brown affair. I agree with JD, laugh at em! It's hilarious watching them working up such a lather & spitting feathers.

You mean like a seedy scary place with dark forces that even before you enter you feel our hairs on ends and your skin and every fibre in your body sensing revulsion to the extreme. Well, best avoid that kind of evil place.

by Smokeandmirrors 09.11.11 7:20

I am so glad Pat Brown will be investigating this. I think from what I read in the part of the case files that were released the Portugese did an awful lot (and IIRC 2/3rds of the files were not release, feel free to correct!) but there may be angles or elements that were not "visible" to them that maybe someone with a psychological expertise will detect. Maybe a joining the dots project that will force a reopening of the case. Also, a review of the case by SY is going to be a very expensive waste of time unless the contradictions and oddities are re-examined. Pat may force a change of plan here. Thank God for peple like Amaral, Brown, and everyone else of professional background who are willing to stand up for justice and the bleedin' obvious! I think we all want this matter brought to a conclusion and be done with once and for all.

by pennylane 09.11.11 9:12

rainbow-fairy wrote:
pennylane wrote:It would be very interesting if Pat could seek out the American actress who was hired to play Kate McCann in the McCanns Mockumentary, and inquire why her particular role ended up on the cutting room floor?
Wouldn't it just, pennylane?!? I always wonder why Kate didn't do it herself? I think maybe she couldn't bring herself to 're-enact' something she knew to be laughably false...

Exacto, rainbow-fairy, and the same reason they refused to do the reconstruction!

by Me 09.11.11 10:15

rainbow-fairy wrote:Why oh why oh why did I do it? WHY? WhatEVER possessed me?!? I only clicked on the link to JATYK - Mad Bren is still spouting about a certain 'Englandshire couple' who 'were pronounced innocent by the Attorney of Foreign Countries' nonsense. Have ANY of them actually read the WHOLE of the archiving despatch??? Yes, the McCann's are innocent in the fact they have not (yet) been charged of a criminal offence BUT an archiving despatch CANNOT PRONOUNCE ABSOLUTE INDEFINITE INNOCENCE. Rather it actually states quite clearly that by their refusal to co-operate with a PJ investigation they ultimately stalled they FAILED TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE! Clear enough for you, BR???
Also, hinting that Pat Brown has an alcohol problem which will lose her the case - er, WTF? If she has, it's no more your business to mention it than it is ours when we talk of the 14 bottles of Tapas wine drunk by the T9 in 11/2 hrs. We're nasty to allude to that apparently. Once again, one rule for them, etc etc.
Its the last time. Whatever the subject I'm not going to pollute my brain with their petty nasty nonsense!

Oh PS: are you all aware that body language and forensic linguistic analysis is useless and 'on par with medieval witch hunting'??? They truly are nutty over that there forum

Please don't even get me started (again) on the whole "innocence" nonsense they cling on to over there. How they can claim a public offical can effectively judge their (note: not a court or a real Judge) innocence typifies the lack of thinking and intelligence inherent over there.

Plus of course as we all know the archiving report specifically refuses to clear them because their actions prevented them from proving their innocence.

Finally we have a real Judge's opinion on the case as per my signature from the book trial.

I know i always rattle on about this but they always seem to ignore these facts.

My Thanks to All for your Support!It has been a crazy last few days but I wanted to stop in and say "Thanks!" to each and every one of you who have posted encouraging words and your support for the road ahead. I have been quite quiet since four months ago