Re: tapas reservation sheets

by russiandoll 02.03.12 13:58

Stella wrote:The identity of the tall, pushy man, who made the block booking has never been revealed.

This is a person of great interest.

We can rule out David, as he is not tall.

We can rule out Gerry, the receptionist knew Madeleine was not with her Father.

We can rule out Russell, although tall, he claims Rachel made the booking, therefore denying it was him.

We can rule out Matthew, as he too said his wife made the booking.

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

all so confused .....now there is a surprise...not.
how could the receptionist have a firm recollection that days earlier these now 2 well known faces were/were not together at reception?
esp if there were so many little blonde girls around..

Can we rule out ROB or MO who could both be telling pork pies.
Did the man constantly call the little girl Madeleine and this is why the child stuck in the receptionist's mind.....

whatever, whoever, there was no need to mention [ and incur the bad opinion/ gossip of tapas staff, or maybe they did not care...] children sleeping nearby, left unattended.......as a reason for the table being needed each evening. Any number of other plausible reasons could have been given. Any suggestions?

e.g......one or a couple of us have had dodgy guts since arriving.........we would be more comfortable using the apartment lavs [ a bit indelicate sorry but given the attacks of the trots a plausible reason] just a thought, maybe thats why there was all the Benny Hill stuff to and from the apartments....not checking at all. even if there was a babysitter.
another name then for the tapas 9.... the soreass 9
now all sing nicely.... that Johnny Cash song........about the burning ring of fire.

big grin

by Guest 02.03.12 14:02

If someone was in my face, asking me for something never done before, I could tell you exactly what he looked like, years after the event.

As for the little girl with him, if she was named by him during the event, how could you get that wrong?

How could you get any of this wrong, discussing it one week after the event with the authorities?

by russiandoll 02.03.12 14:25

Quite possibly you would not, but I was looking at this from the point of there being another child with the same name, as has been mentioned on the forum. I am still not sure about the sub thing, but some are pretty convinced and I was" purporting" a theory, could it have been the other girl, with her own father?
I am trying to put myself in the place of that receptionist with the hindsight of these faces suddenly all over the media.......it would trigger a memory if it were Gerry and his daughter. But is there not a possibility as these faces would be uppermost in her mind after the disappearance, that she mistook the id of one or both and memory not correct? Maybe very unlikely, but not impossible.
Do you agree though that all the pushiness was with the motive of establishing the neglect scenario? If I were in that receptionist's place and children were mentioned, I would feel pressured into a one -off arrangement , I am pretty sure.
BTW if there was a note about the unattended children in the files, could it have existed as a note to staff that there was a potentially unsafe situation at the OC, for which the company might not be insured or something of that kind, for staff to be aware of as a potential problem...rather than to explain why an unusual favour was being done for the adults?

by Guest 02.03.12 14:44

russiandoll wrote:could it have been the other girl, with her own father?

That is a very good possibility.

by russiandoll 22.06.12 13:25

Russell O'Brien was sick and didn't go to dinner on the Tuesday and Rachael Oldfield was sick and didn't go to dinner on the Wednesday.

the tapas sheets on an earlier page show a party of 9 for both evenings. I remember 1st May Kates diary said Matt had food brought up [ interesting verb as commented elsewhere, sounds as if she was there not at the tapas table].
But I dont recall RO saying she had any food sent up....and in both cases I do not understand why the sheets stated 9, written in advance for the whole week at the time the block booking was made?

a small point.... the sheets have names written beginning at the time figure not the p.m . If written in advance for the week, Irwins should be listed after McCann party, not before. Also, if written in advance, there should be booking sheets somewhere with the McCann group listed for 4th, their last evening?
I still cannot understand why names itemised rather than persons x 9. Maybe for billing but that is for the group to take care of themselves? Surely they each took a turn to pay for the evenings' drinks bills...

by sami 22.06.12 14:40

Much as I dislike the pre-planned theory, I yet again find myself back thinking about it.

If you wanted to be remembered by somebody, what better way to be remembered than by being "pushy". Somebody annoys you, you remember them. Seems to me like the pushy man wanted to be remembered, wanted to be remembered for being with Madeleine and wanted to advertise the fact the children were going to be alone. This being the case, it really does point to pre-planning. Indeed it would also lend credibility to the substitute theory.

The whole episode is too neat, it provides an excuse for too many things and identifies Madeleine. So we have a witness to her being alive and well on that day and also an opportunity to suggest the children being left alone was advertised to all and sundry, helping the abduction theory along. Two very important points, covered by just one small public outing.

Such a pity we do not know how the receptionist is so sure it was Madeleine.

Regarding the nightly sickness, I have a list of questions in my head I would dearly love to ask that Tapas bunch. High up on that list is why were none of you sick during the day to the extent you had to curtail some of your tennis and sailing activities. This terrible bug seems to only have struck at night during restaurant hours. Miraculous recoveries overnight were had by all.

by Guest 22.06.12 15:12

Portia wrote:
Stewie wrote:
dentdelion wrote:What happened to the note about children being left unattended that was supposed to be written in the Tapas reservation book?

I was looking for that as wondered where Kate would have seen it - can't see anything like that in the pj files.. so either Kate is being economical with the truth, they got a different set of files to those publicly available or she is exaggerating what is on the booking sheets.... The booking sheets have the name, room number then an indication of how many in the party - 2+2 means 2 adults plus 2 children....

So if I was feeling generous to Kate could say she exaggerated this booking sheet and the notation of how many children would be dining with the party... and she's trying to say from seeing the sheet an "abductor" could see that apartment 5a 2 adults would be dining but no children indicated on the sheet... presuming the "abductor" knew they had children and also knew that they weren't in the evening creche...then the abductor would know that the children would be alone in the apartment...... it's a very big stretch to believe that would be what happened.

I doubt they would have been given a different version of the pj files than those publicly available.... so my guess would be that there are some porkies being told to try and enforce the abductor -was-watching-ustheory and also put some blame onto the ocean club for leaving the bookings visible to all...

Please read this carefully:

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Fri 3 Jun 2011 - 12:08

From the receptionist's statement:

She
remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group
arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and
can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached
her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and
always at 20.30.

When questioned, she confirms that the man was
not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was
often seen in his company.

The man justified his request by
saying that the group had many small children whom they would leave
alone when they went to dine.

She said that at intervals some two
parents would go to the apartments to see if everything was OK.

The
deponent made some comments about the request, saying that the Tapas
received many requests and that MW only had a quota of 20 per day, but
upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings
requested.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How would this lady have known Madeleine McCann as early as April 29th?
How would she -at that date- have known not only the child by name, but also who was her father, or rather not her father?

This so-called anonymous so-called 'NON-FATHER' on April 29th emphatically advertised to all and sundry that they intended to abandon all the children every night when they went out boozing. Now, why would anyone in his right mind, in a foreign country, just arriving, do that?

These two-parent couples. absenting themselves, at the same time, apparently more than once ('would'), now what exactly were they doing? Who were they? And why, on May 3rd, just one parent at a time, right after the other?
_______________________________________________

The translation above highlighted in red has a word missing and that is why it has caused much confusion. I read about this omission ages ago on MCF. The word THAT is missing....

It should read......

She
remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group
THAT arrived with the child Madeleine McCann,

So this person was on his own, not with Madeleine, and a member of the tapas group, a tall thin man, either MO or ROB I would think. Have a look at the original Portuguese statement and you will see the word THAT clearly in it.

by Hummingbird 22.06.12 15:35

candyfloss wrote:
Portia wrote:
Stewie wrote:
dentdelion wrote:What happened to the note about children being left unattended that was supposed to be written in the Tapas reservation book?

I was looking for that as wondered where Kate would have seen it - can't see anything like that in the pj files.. so either Kate is being economical with the truth, they got a different set of files to those publicly available or she is exaggerating what is on the booking sheets.... The booking sheets have the name, room number then an indication of how many in the party - 2+2 means 2 adults plus 2 children....

So if I was feeling generous to Kate could say she exaggerated this booking sheet and the notation of how many children would be dining with the party... and she's trying to say from seeing the sheet an "abductor" could see that apartment 5a 2 adults would be dining but no children indicated on the sheet... presuming the "abductor" knew they had children and also knew that they weren't in the evening creche...then the abductor would know that the children would be alone in the apartment...... it's a very big stretch to believe that would be what happened.

I doubt they would have been given a different version of the pj files than those publicly available.... so my guess would be that there are some porkies being told to try and enforce the abductor -was-watching-ustheory and also put some blame onto the ocean club for leaving the bookings visible to all...

Please read this carefully:

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Fri 3 Jun 2011 - 12:08

From the receptionist's statement:

She
remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group
arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and
can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached
her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and
always at 20.30.

When questioned, she confirms that the man was
not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was
often seen in his company.

The man justified his request by
saying that the group had many small children whom they would leave
alone when they went to dine.

She said that at intervals some two
parents would go to the apartments to see if everything was OK.

The
deponent made some comments about the request, saying that the Tapas
received many requests and that MW only had a quota of 20 per day, but
upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings
requested.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How would this lady have known Madeleine McCann as early as April 29th?
How would she -at that date- have known not only the child by name, but also who was her father, or rather not her father?

This so-called anonymous so-called 'NON-FATHER' on April 29th emphatically advertised to all and sundry that they intended to abandon all the children every night when they went out boozing. Now, why would anyone in his right mind, in a foreign country, just arriving, do that?

These two-parent couples. absenting themselves, at the same time, apparently more than once ('would'), now what exactly were they doing? Who were they? And why, on May 3rd, just one parent at a time, right after the other?
_______________________________________________

The translation above highlighted in red has a word missing and that is why it has caused much confusion. I read about this omission ages ago on MCF. The word THAT is missing....

It should read......

She
remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group
THAT arrived with the child Madeleine McCann,

So this person was on his own, not with Madeleine, and a member of the tapas group, a tall thin man, either MO or ROB I would think. Have a look at the original Portuguese statement and you will see the word THAT clearly in it.

What about Payne? He arrived with MM not ROB or MO they arrived BEFORE her. Payne and GM would have checked in together on the Saturday upon arrival the other two men already being there and having already settled in. Therefore if it was the same receptionist that checked them in that was there to take the tapas bookings she would have recognised him as the same man that arrived with the parent of the child MM!

Also as for the illnesses only affecting one person at night and not during the day, that is because there was NO illness at all. These people who were 'ill' one on each night are the ones who were the allocated babysitters (one per night) food taken up.

Then of course that begs the question WHY at the beginning of the week did they already know that they were going to say (make out) that they were going to leave the children alone if they weren't and were babysitting them?

Did the accident happen on the first night? The plot put into action on the Sunday and that is why Sunday and Monday are pretty vague with what happened those days? is that why the McCanns didn't go to the Millenium again using the pathetic excuse that it was too far for the twins and there was no buggy!! Did they have breakfast, lunch etc in the apartment so as not to be seen too often in public with all of the children? It would explain why only the other families ate out with their children and the McCanns preferred to eat alone at home with theirs!

The receptionist being made very aware of this man and their intentions of leaving the children and the showing off of MM (not really her) means that they had to raise peoples awareness before the Thursday when they shouted 'abduction' They had to have set those seeds in peoples minds before the event.

by Guest 22.06.12 16:20

Hummingbird wrote:

Did the accident happen on the first night? The plot put into action on the Sunday and that is why Sunday and Monday are pretty vague with what happened those days? is that why the McCanns didn't go to the Millenium again using the pathetic excuse that it was too far for the twins and there was no buggy!! Did they have breakfast, lunch etc in the apartment so as not to be seen too often in public with all of the children? It would explain why only the other families ate out with their children and the McCanns preferred to eat alone at home with theirs!

I wondered about the Millennium and why no more visits with family in tow.. Just wondering how visible the CCTV was there at the restaurant. We've seen the footage of the tapas 7 gathering there .. so maybe if it was noticed on the first visit then they didn't go back because the would have been on film ...

by sami 22.06.12 16:26

Leaving aside descriptions of people and anything else, if you consider who was the most obvious person from the group to go and arrange a booking it would be Payne.

It was he who arranged the holiday and also it was he who had the subsequent email correspondence giving out about what facilities were / were not available. It would make sense, therefore, for him to go to reception, demand a weeks booking for the group, on the basis that he had been told by M Warner before departure that they would try to accommodate them all being close together in the apartments etc.

by Hummingbird 22.06.12 17:21

sami wrote:Leaving aside descriptions of people and anything else, if you consider who was the most obvious person from the group to go and arrange a booking it would be Payne.

It was he who arranged the holiday and also it was he who had the subsequent email correspondence giving out about what facilities were / were not available. It would make sense, therefore, for him to go to reception, demand a weeks booking for the group, on the basis that he had been told by M Warner before departure that they would try to accommodate them all being close together in the apartments etc.

Absolutely and why he would have been so persistent. Perhaps using the fact that he was unhappy with something like the Millenium being too far for the children to walk and this hadn't been pointed out to him etc etc. The receptionist isn't going to say if he was complaining about something MW had done wrong now would she.

by sami 22.06.12 17:38

Hummingbird wrote:
sami wrote:Leaving aside descriptions of people and anything else, if you consider who was the most obvious person from the group to go and arrange a booking it would be Payne.

It was he who arranged the holiday and also it was he who had the subsequent email correspondence giving out about what facilities were / were not available. It would make sense, therefore, for him to go to reception, demand a weeks booking for the group, on the basis that he had been told by M Warner before departure that they would try to accommodate them all being close together in the apartments etc.

Absolutely and why he would have been so persistent. Perhaps using the fact that he was unhappy with something like the Millenium being too far for the children to walk and this hadn't been pointed out to him etc etc. The receptionist isn't going to say if he was complaining about something MW had done wrong now would she.

I agree.

There is just so much that is wrong with the whole set up. I firmly believe if you delve into everything, most things will look suspicious, so some things that may seem odd or strange or not the norm, is just what happened, the way it was. I bet the same could be said of my life if looked at under a microscope.

However, there are just some things that you do, particularly when there are children involved. From the get go, this whole holiday was a mess. It appears what they booked was not what they thought they would get, the restaurant they were to eat in seems to have been a pilgrimege of sorts to get to, the McCanns had no buggy, no baby listener, no nothing it would seem.

None of the group were inexperienced travellers with their children and so these were mistakes and omissions that just don't feel right. OK, they were booking a holiday for themselves and the kids were just an accessory. That in itself would lead me to believe they would / should have looked into every aspect of how it would work with the kids, even if to ensure they were not a disruption to the adults having a good time. I've never in my life heard of someone going on holiday without ensuring they had a buggy, particularly somebody with three children. Even Madeleine at her age would have gladly hopped in for a spin in the evenings.

What is it about this group of people, the majority of whom should be academically bright at least ? It is as if they planned their visit in the same way Murat planned his, at the last minute and in a hurry. We are told however this was booked some months in advance.

All so strange

by aniandr 22.06.12 19:16

sami wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
sami wrote:Leaving aside descriptions of people and anything else, if you consider who was the most obvious person from the group to go and arrange a booking it would be Payne.

It was he who arranged the holiday and also it was he who had the subsequent email correspondence giving out about what facilities were / were not available. It would make sense, therefore, for him to go to reception, demand a weeks booking for the group, on the basis that he had been told by M Warner before departure that they would try to accommodate them all being close together in the apartments etc.

Absolutely and why he would have been so persistent. Perhaps using the fact that he was unhappy with something like the Millenium being too far for the children to walk and this hadn't been pointed out to him etc etc. The receptionist isn't going to say if he was complaining about something MW had done wrong now would she.

I agree.

There is just so much that is wrong with the whole set up. I firmly believe if you delve into everything, most things will look suspicious, so some things that may seem odd or strange or not the norm, is just what happened, the way it was. I bet the same could be said of my life if looked at under a microscope.

However, there are just some things that you do, particularly when there are children involved. From the get go, this whole holiday was a mess. It appears what they booked was not what they thought they would get, the restaurant they were to eat in seems to have been a pilgrimege of sorts to get to, the McCanns had no buggy, no baby listener, no nothing it would seem.

None of the group were inexperienced travellers with their children and so these were mistakes and omissions that just don't feel right. OK, they were booking a holiday for themselves and the kids were just an accessory. That in itself would lead me to believe they would / should have looked into every aspect of how it would work with the kids, even if to ensure they were not a disruption to the adults having a good time. I've never in my life heard of someone going on holiday without ensuring they had a buggy, particularly somebody with three children. Even Madeleine at her age would have gladly hopped in for a spin in the evenings.

What is it about this group of people, the majority of whom should be academically bright at least ? It is as if they planned their visit in the same way Murat planned his, at the last minute and in a hurry. We are told however this was booked some months in advance.

All so strange

And you cant judge people of dooing Strange/Odd things. I need the looking into hard facts. The clue is not in have gerry looked Day three. Cant use that in a courtroom. A maybe photoshopped picture. Even if it was - you cant use that in a courtroom. What you Can use is facts. Dna traces, a Body etc and that together with a witness ore something you have a case. And the clue isnt in wether CC always was with Madeleine ore if Kate behaves Odd. The evidence needs to be found in a missing piece of information ore something not investigated. Some phonecalls, some traces, a missing piece of evidence.

I agere that most People's life even on a holiday would look Strange. Why did she yell at the Child. Why was the Child allowed to get icescream when it was raining?! Why they were so interested in the churces? Etc

by friedtomatoes 23.06.12 0:41

i dont see anything wrong with the reservation sheets

they get changes and tippexed just like any others
russiandoll the names and flat nos had to be put to tick them off as having had their dinner
as the holiday booking was with breakfast and dinner, just guessing

i dont know why they were not booked inTo the tapas for the 4th, perhaps they had an early flight on the 5th and decided they wouldnt go out that night

so the irwins got let in, so what? as for them iirc they were mother and daughter, sorry, talking about stuff in two threads

by friedtomatoes 23.06.12 0:51

Stewie wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:

Did the accident happen on the first night? The plot put into action on the Sunday and that is why Sunday and Monday are pretty vague with what happened those days? is that why the McCanns didn't go to the Millenium again using the pathetic excuse that it was too far for the twins and there was no buggy!! Did they have breakfast, lunch etc in the apartment so as not to be seen too often in public with all of the children? It would explain why only the other families ate out with their children and the McCanns preferred to eat alone at home with theirs!

I wondered about the Millennium and why no more visits with family in tow.. Just wondering how visible the CCTV was there at the restaurant. We've seen the footage of the tapas 7 gathering there .. so maybe if it was noticed on the first visit then they didn't go back because the would have been on film ...

the cctv we have was of the tapas 7 going to the paraiso restaraunt on the beach on the afternoon of third may, not the millenium restaraunt, none of them went there post the first night, as far as i know there is no cctv footage of the tapas group anywhere apart from that

by Guest 23.06.12 16:27

friedtomatoes wrote:
Stewie wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:

Did the accident happen on the first night? The plot put into action on the Sunday and that is why Sunday and Monday are pretty vague with what happened those days? is that why the McCanns didn't go to the Millenium again using the pathetic excuse that it was too far for the twins and there was no buggy!! Did they have breakfast, lunch etc in the apartment so as not to be seen too often in public with all of the children? It would explain why only the other families ate out with their children and the McCanns preferred to eat alone at home with theirs!

I wondered about the Millennium and why no more visits with family in tow.. Just wondering how visible the CCTV was there at the restaurant. We've seen the footage of the tapas 7 gathering there .. so maybe if it was noticed on the first visit then they didn't go back because the would have been on film ...

the cctv we have was of the tapas 7 going to the paraiso restaraunt on the beach on the afternoon of third may, not the millenium restaraunt, none of them went there post the first night, as far as i know there is no cctv footage of the tapas group anywhere apart from that

fair enough.. my mistake

by friedtomatoes 23.06.12 20:02

stewie its a cryring shame there was no cctv for the week apart from that, im sure it would have been interesting
whilst cctv is intrusive i get the argument too that its ok if it helps solve crime

by russiandoll 23.06.12 20:34

Regarding the nightly sickness, I have a list of questions in my head I would dearly love to ask that Tapas bunch. High up on that list is why were none of you sick during the day to the extent you had to curtail some of your tennis and sailing activities. This terrible bug seems to only have struck at night during restaurant hours. Miraculous recoveries overnight were had by all.

I am sure that last comment will be written somewhere in Portuguese with a few exclamation marks added for emphasis, it was indeed a rare type of sickness . Usually with a bout of the wildies and/or vomiting you want to rest the next day. Business as usual though, how convenient.

by friedtomatoes 23.06.12 20:41

russiandoll wrote:Regarding the nightly sickness, I have a list of questions in my head I would dearly love to ask that Tapas bunch. High up on that list is why were none of you sick during the day to the extent you had to curtail some of your tennis and sailing activities. This terrible bug seems to only have struck at night during restaurant hours. Miraculous recoveries overnight were had by all.

I am sure that last comment will be written somewhere in Portuguese with a few exclamation marks added for emphasis, it was indeed a rare type of sickness . Usually with a bout of the wildies and/or vomiting you want to rest the next day. Business as usual though, how convenient.

Thats a good point however perhaps they were not all into each other and certain people couldnt stand others and didnt wanna do the tapas thing every night, jane made her disdain of gerry clear perhaps her hubby agreed, kate and gerry i can imagine you wouldnot want to spend every night with, alpha male no thanks, lying womn no thanks again she lied that she wasnt asked to join them on the beach may 3rd well thats what liars do they lie

eta i dont subscribe to the theory they were off sick to look afterthe kids

for one they were not sick every single night secondly there is no evidence all the kids were in one flat theories spread like that

its possible one person stayed in and checked the flats but not every night

sooner this goes to court the better then the mccanns and co can stop abusing us

by **tigger** 24.06.12 9:00

russiandoll wrote:Regarding the nightly sickness, I have a list of questions in my head I would dearly love to ask that Tapas bunch. High up on that list is why were none of you sick during the day to the extent you had to curtail some of your tennis and sailing activities. This terrible bug seems to only have struck at night during restaurant hours. Miraculous recoveries overnight were had by all.

I am sure that last comment will be written somewhere in Portuguese with a few exclamation marks added for emphasis, it was indeed a rare type of sickness . Usually with a bout of the wildies and/or vomiting you want to rest the next day. Business as usual though, how convenient.

They're not just doctors, but miracle workers. Gerry himself, struck down by an injured achilles tendon, recovered within hours from this usually lengthy impairment.
A virus which struck out of the blue on the 1st August 2007 was dealt with by the following day. Donate this man to the nation if not the NHS!

by russiandoll 24.06.12 9:13

Apologies to sami whose quote I did not put in quotation marks.......it was sami, not me, who made the excellent point about the overnight -only sickness which cleared up quickly so daytimes could be enjoyed as usual. I merely added a remark to the very good point made by another member.
One thing bothering me, a lot of what we are seeing which clearly the PJ and SY have seen does not amount to evidence. Good speculation and theorising, but not the evidence needed to establish a crime by any particular person/s.

by **tigger** 24.06.12 9:42

russiandoll wrote: Apologies to sami whose quote I did not put in quotation marks.......it was sami, not me, who made the excellent point about the overnight -only sickness which cleared up quickly so daytimes could be enjoyed as usual. I merely added a remark to the very good point made by another member.
One thing bothering me, a lot of what we are seeing which clearly the PJ and SY have seen does not amount to evidence. Good speculation and theorising, but not the evidence needed to establish a crime by any particular person/s.

That's why I think the Fund is the key point. Fraud leaves a trail. Tax evasion leaves a trail. The Fund is solid proof.

The DNA is a dead duck and imo one of the most glaring miscarriages of the entire investigation.
Samples are never thrown out if the result is ambigious. This is why cases from decades ago can still come to court due to improved techniques.
Contamination is impossible as a reason for the above. All laboratory staff has their DNA recorded and thus contamination can be detected and discounted from any sample. It is also quite unlikely that all the samples were contaminated.

There is very little which will stand up in court - the McCanns themselves no doubt think they've lost anyway. All they've ever done was to achieve the lifestyle, the celebrity, the A list, rubbing shoulders with royalty, presidents and the like.
A sporting life in the Algarve in between jetting to conferences, giving lectures, having a film made about one's martyrdom. All gone. All that's left is Rothley and becoming more and more toxic to the press, the friends one once had and the celebrities who once supported them. The public too, is getting bored with the same old story. The show is over for them too, even a new sighting won't sell more papers now.

Here's another question:

It's all very well to supply us with 'age advanced' photographs of Maddie, but what about supplying Maddie with some age advanced photograph of her parents? Just five years on and they couldn't possibly play themselves at the time of their daughter's disappearance.

by sami 25.06.12 10:00

russiandoll wrote: Apologies to sami whose quote I did not put in quotation marks.......it was sami, not me, who made the excellent point about the overnight -only sickness which cleared up quickly so daytimes could be enjoyed as usual. I merely added a remark to the very good point made by another member.
One thing bothering me, a lot of what we are seeing which clearly the PJ and SY have seen does not amount to evidence. Good speculation and theorising, but not the evidence needed to establish a crime by any particular person/s.

Hello Russiandoll, there is no apology necessary. Yes all we have is speculation and theories but they are very important issues. We can have no doubt that it was speculation by the PJ and UK police in the early days in PDL that ultimately led to the arrival of the Eddie and Keela and the rest is history as they say.

The day we stop speculating though, is the day the McCanns will sleep happy. I hope history will show that when Madeleine finds justice we can look back in hingsight and say that sites such as this, discussions, speculation and theories by people in places such as this, is what ultimately kept the case alive, while her parents shelved it.

Had Healy and McCann been allowed to, they were quite happy to easy jet it back to Rothley, live off the fund, a few annual trips here and there to countries where Madeleine was most unlikely to be, and just generally live the celebrity lifestyle. Speculation has helped to put a damper on that.

What is really in the files that were with-held ? We do not know. It is difficult to speculate how things will turn out, one thing I am fairly confident about at the moment though, is that the winds of change have started to blow and if I were in Healy and McCanns shoes I would be looking for shelter.
Just my theory. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by bobbin 25.06.12 11:36

sami wrote:
russiandoll wrote: Apologies to sami whose quote I did not put in quotation marks.......it was sami, not me, who made the excellent point about the overnight -only sickness which cleared up quickly so daytimes could be enjoyed as usual. I merely added a remark to the very good point made by another member.
One thing bothering me, a lot of what we are seeing which clearly the PJ and SY have seen does not amount to evidence. Good speculation and theorising, but not the evidence needed to establish a crime by any particular person/s.

Hello Russiandoll, there is no apology necessary. Yes all we have is speculation and theories but they are very important issues. We can have no doubt that it was speculation by the PJ and UK police in the early days in PDL that ultimately led to the arrival of the Eddie and Keela and the rest is history as they say.

The day we stop speculating though, is the day the McCanns will sleep happy. I hope history will show that when Madeleine finds justice we can look back in hingsight and say that sites such as this, discussions, speculation and theories by people in places such as this, is what ultimately kept the case alive, while her parents shelved it.

Had Healy and McCann been allowed to, they were quite happy to easy jet it back to Rothley, live off the fund, a few annual trips here and there to countries where Madeleine was most unlikely to be, and just generally live the celebrity lifestyle. Speculation has helped to put a damper on that.

What is really in the files that were with-held ? We do not know. It is difficult to speculate how things will turn out, one thing I am fairly confident about at the moment though, is that the winds of change have started to blow and if I were in Healy and McCanns shoes I would be looking for shelter.
Just my theory. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Love it, your theory in a nutshell. I'd also be looking for a hammer to nail the roof timbers down. This wind is going to be a hurricane when it finally kicks off.
Yes, it is 'speculation' such as this, which has stopped the McCs from just walking off into the sunset, no cares, no worries, a pocket full of greenbacks and more in the (offshore) bank.
Maddy needs the 'tenacity' that we will not relinquish until she can be offered the dignity and justice that she so innocently deserves.

by **PeterMac** 25.06.12 12:00

Redwood had a reputation for "closed case" enquiries. That is why he was chosen. Let us keep that in mind.
Sleep well Tapas 7, Mitchell, Trustees, solicitors, and all others who are involved.
One day the truth will be told.
Not just a "version", but the whole truth.

Log in for more topics