There is a Little Girl Missing
Page 5 of 5 • Share
Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: There is a Little Girl Missing
jmbd wrote:That Madeleine has a mark in her eye.
Right. I've just replied to one of your posts on another thread about no mark in her eye but it now appears that you DO think she had one! So ignore my other post and can only assume you were being evasive in the other thread. Hadn't realised this was being discussed here.
marigold- Posts : 234
Activity : 233
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: There is a Little Girl Missing
Autumn wrote:It is not absolutely certain that she had an eye defect - again, this may have been a ruse to make her a more marketable product. As the LP refused the PJ's request for Maddie's medical records, the columba could not be verified.
To Create One Marketing Product? The Look for Madeleine Sign?
We Think this Line of Speculation is Silly.
The Child Had An Eye Defect.
People Would Have Stampeded Themselves to Tell the Police If She did Not.
aliberte2- Posts : 364
Activity : 366
Likes received : -1
Join date : 2009-12-21
Re: There is a Little Girl Missing
Autumn wrote:aliberte2 wrote:Autumn wrote:Oh yes, the eye defect that the PJ warned the McCanns not to mention incase it put Madeleine at risk.
She Was Already in the Arms of an Abductor; Far More Important to Spread Whatever Readily Identifable marks necessary to Identify Her.
Perhaps if the PJ had Done their Job to Spread the Picture to Begin with the McCanns Wouldn't Have Done it on Their Own.
Again, you Don't Believe She was Abducted so the Eye Defect Doesn't matter.
What evidence do you have to back up your belief that 'she was already in the arms of an abductor'?
That Would be the Only Reason to Spread a Description.
If She Was Dead At the Hands of the McCanns She Could Not be At Risk.
aliberte2- Posts : 364
Activity : 366
Likes received : -1
Join date : 2009-12-21
Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum