Why didn't you come last night...?

Kololi wrote:Ok I will bite....

So if anyone here doesn't agree with what some of you see as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then they are, let's see -

devil's advocates, attention seekers, generally disruptive people, deluded and sort of lemmingish because they believe every word written in the red tops rather than questioning and thinking for themselves.

Reminds me of a Gary Glitter song!

D'you wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang. D'you wanna be in my gang, oh yeah! Oh no! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are none so blind as those who will not see

Me wrote:

Kololi wrote:Ok I will bite....

So if anyone here doesn't agree with what some of you see as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then they are, let's see -

devil's advocates, attention seekers, generally disruptive people, deluded and sort of lemmingish because they believe every word written in the red tops rather than questioning and thinking for themselves.

Reminds me of a Gary Glitter song!

D'you wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang. D'you wanna be in my gang, oh yeah! Oh no! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nope, you couldn't be further from the truth. If someone doesn't agree with me i expect them to put forward their reasoning and evidence to convince me of their argument and counter mine.

If they provide none, yet I on the other hand provide ample, then i expect that person to acknowledge the information provided and act accordingly.

In Merrymo's case we have provided ample evidence to counter her pre-conceived beliefs yet still she continues to spout the same unproven evidence less nonesense.

It reminds me of the old saying:

There are none so blind as those who will not see

rainbow-fairy wrote:

tuom wrote:Hi All



I enjoyed all the posts on this topic and as a newbie am reading all avidly, I have always been in awe of the McCanns atttitude and seemingly coldness in light of what happened be it accidental or otherwise............ my son age 4 had an episode of sleepwalking , we lived in an estate at the time and his friend lived four doors away , during the night my son got out of bed got his toy tractor , stood on it and opened the front door and went to his friends house , it was 12.30 am and we ( my husband and I and young baby ) were asleep.

We were woken approx 15 mins later by my neighbour knocking on the door bringing him back, we were all very alarmed TG he came to no harm ................ he is now 30 and I still feel bad that I did not wake and hear him, even now posting this I shudder to think .............. I hope this makes my point..

K & G got warning "why did you not come last night" yet they still left her .........

Yes tuom, allegedly they got warning and still did it again ( I say allegedly as I remain convinced the children were not left alone).
I have been re-watching early interviews with K+G, this on which was Sky News springs to mind*
They were talking about leaving the children alone, the 'why didn't you come' question etc;
News Q; Do you think the public criticism of you was fair?
Kate: "You know, we've been through this, we did what we did but at the end of the day Madeleine was taken and she went through something terrifying, so... "
Gerry "Children wake and cry all the time..."
* this is paraphrased as I don't remember the exact words or have a link - someone here will know - its where Kate did her 'Elvis lip' as in 'She just sort of, moved on' (cue Elvis)

I was just blown away. Yes Kate, IF Maddie WAS abducted, she suffered something terrible because you couldn't be ar*ed to look after her!
And Gerry, in that one sentence, sums up neatly at least one good reason you shouldn't leave a 3yr old and two 18 month olds alone. Not to mention choking. Falls, fire, fingers in electric sockets...
If, big if, its ever proven definitively they were left alone they SHOULD be charged with neglect at the very least.

I agree with your observations tuom. I still shudder to think of near misses my boys have had. You need eyes in the back of your head and then some... You don't leave toddlers alone. End of.

BTW, I don't think I said welcome to you yet. So, hi and welcome!

anil39200 wrote:Actually Merrymo
I am still waiting for an answer to my question almost 3 weeks ago when I asked you what evidence there was for an abduction. The answer you gave me was evidence for a disappearance, ie a missing child, as I recall, but what I asked for was 2evidence of an abduction" . In my opinion, and I dare say, of many others, the say so of one unreliable witness who was part of the group cannot be relied on and that leaves us with a missing child. So, are you able to answer that question and furthermore, why do you think there are supporters of the parents who believe the story as given by the parents as the true story on face value?

russiandoll wrote: evidence that devil's advocates are not excluded: the recent section on the controversial Gaspar statement.
This was started by Stella following a post by me stating I was playing devil's advocate , note the verb..........it is a role you assume when you don't necessarily believe what you postulate, it is to encourage others to argue their case, it helps to look at an issue again and reassess facts and hopefully strengthen the argument.

It is not done to make mischief, it is done with the intention of moving debate forward and encouraging reasoned discussion.
It is imo a wise thing to do when an issue of horrific implications is up for discussion, in that case paedophilia.
So no apologies from me for playing that role of DA. It should be clear from the opening gambit and subsequent points made whether it is being done for a positive reason or for the sake of being disruptive...in that case a person is not a DA but MM, mischief-maker.

russiandoll wrote: Merrymo, if I was abrupt with you yesterday and you are genuinely here to debate some issues, then it was out of frustration that you wasted a lot of time being evasive. I for one welcome debate from those who support the abduction theory , as it is impossible to get on to the pro abduction sites and do so... frustratingly. I would not go there to insult or mock, I genuinely do want to argue the case, but not possible so far and one site even wont allow new members full stop, wishing to remain as a clique who just go around in circles abusing anyone who questions the abduction theory and hurling vile insults at GA, PB, TB, JM and others they hold in contempt.
So it is very important imo to welcome people here who hold an opposing view, but please be very clear and back up what you state as a fact with some evidence. Voicing an opinion is different, but if you state a thing as a fact it needs backing up, then we can move on.

You have said something that is well worth considering. Why would JT involve herself in the way she has? So now let us get on and based on facts, discuss the likely reasons or lack of them.
[Whatever her reasons, I find it very strange that a member of their group was the only one to see the alleged abductor just as he was very helpfully exiting the apartment and crossing a road.]

The crux of the matter. No evidence of an abduction does not mean one did not take place. True.
But that is not how the police work.
They look for evidence. So we need to ask, there being no evidence of an abduction, what evidence IS THERE of another scenario having unfolded the evening of 3rd May 2007?

If you keep arguing based on semantics, it will appear as if you are here to play mind games.

Merrymo wrote:I am more than happy to discuss my belief/theory that Maddie was abducted, - but may I ask you first of all to tell me - what type of evidence you are referring to? and what evidence you would expect an abductor to leave at the scene of a crime which could possibly have been completed in under less than a couple of minutes?

The definitive conferral evidence

At its heart lies an apparently trivial, but in the event absolutely intractable, problem. A period of just five to ten minutes means the difference between a possible abduction and an impossible one; some members of the Nine realised this by May 5 yet the attempts to master it, beginning with the construction of the third “timeline”, not only failed completely but ended up providing the trail.

At their first conferral over the day’s events, between 10.30 PM and 1 AM on the night of the 3/4 May, documentary evidence (the sticker-book entries) proves that the participants,Gerry McCann, Russell O’ Brien, David Payne and Mathew Oldfield, all agreed, in writing and in two separate documents, that there was a gap of between five and ten minutes between the return of Oldfield from his “shutter check” and the departure of Gerry McCann for his “check”. The walking time between restaurant and apartments is some 90 seconds to the front of the apartments, 65 seconds to 5A patio doors.

Timeline A relevant entries

8:45. pm

Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3

- all shutters down

Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well

? did he check

9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child

Timeline B relevant entries

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

Such agreement and documentation cannot be “reversed” since it is definitive – the participants were all present and jointly created the document and no relevant information sources that could change their conclusions were absent during the conferral.

The police statements

The conferee’s May 4 statements, made before they had any chance for further discussion, are instructive. Gerry McCann: “at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, [Ocean Club apartment] using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition.” [Assim, sendo palas 21.05 o declarente veio ao clube,entrou no quarto munidoda chave respectica, estando a porta transcada.] But there was no mention of Oldfield and his return to the restaurant.

And Payne made no mention of Gerry’s first check at all. “He no longer remembers in what order they went to see their children.”

O’ Brien was no support. “He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 21h00 to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later [our italics]Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, [ours again]to check the children.”

But Oldfield’s statement was the best: “That around 21h05, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments, notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise.”

So when Gerry McCann approached his front door with a key he would have found Mathew Oldfield bent over listening to the shutters...

Impossibilities...

Put shortly: the twin parameters of time/distance analysis results and the presence of the independent witness Wilkins determine fixed intervals that cannot be manipulated: the abduction, whatever form it takes, key or no key, abductor or abductors, has to occur after a certain time (the time Oldfield left the shutters) and be completed before a certain time (Tanner’s sighting). That being so a gap between Oldfield’s return and McCann’s departure from the restaurant of more than a few seconds, combined with McCann’s entry to the apartment via the locked front door, cannot be fitted in. It is impossible.

...and developments

It was not just the police who began noting this impossibility. In his second statement on May 10 Gerry McCann decided to tell the police about others’ actions as well as his own. “At 21H05, Mathew returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go check on his children.” Mathew has been pulled away from the shutters he stated he was listening to at 9.05, been teleported through the darkening streets without being asked and the interval is down to zero.

So Gerry now knew to the second when he had left – 9.04. He wasn’t asked how he could be so exact before his arguido statement in September. That was when he told the police he had looked at his never-before-mentioned watch! Of course this completely contradicted the sticker book evidence which he had helped prepare and the chief feature of which was the inability to time that same departure exactly by any of those present. Including Dr McCann. Anyway it was incorporated (as 9.05) in David Payne’s helpful exercise in clarifying new timelines.

Finally McCann bites another bullet – there was no alternative because of the timescale and the possibility of further theoretical “collisions” like that between himself and Oldfield outside the apartment door – and completely changes his description of how he entered the apartment.

Now you cannot “unremember” an event. And it is well known that for information analysis purposes the first statement is always the most reliable in describing actions, rather than emotions or states of mind. Gerry McCann had told the police flatly that he went into the apartment by opening the locked front door with a key and had then signed and attested the truth of his statement having had it read back to him in English.

The only entrance requiring a key is the front door one off the car park, for the patio doors do not have a lock but are bolted from inside. But now he claimed, without comment or explanation and in breach of his previous attestation of the truth, “He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide.” [Efectuou o trajecto normal ate a porta das traseiras, a qual estando alberta somente teve de a deslocar send que.] Then, in an easy procedure for Gerry McCann he signed for and attested to the truth of this statement, having had it read back to him in English.

Merrymo wrote:Also considering that as the crime scene was not cordoned off as soon as it could have been, any evidence which may have been left could well have been destroyed or contaminated by the traffic of the McCanns, their friends, hotel staff, policemen and their dogs etc. But that doesn't mean it didn't ever exist.

Merrymo wrote:Evidence could possibly have been overlooked. Even Amaral commented on the less than professional approach of the person taking fingerprint evidence.

Merrymo wrote:If you are saying that because no forensic evidence was found that means an abduction was impossible then I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with you for the above reasons.

Merrymo wrote:As regards Jane Tanner, you are of course entitled to your opinion that she was an unreliable witness. . From reading the witness files - that is not my opinion.

Merrymo wrote:JT was not a particular friend of the McCanns, and since meeting them 4 years previously had only met up with them on 2/3 occasions per year - at weddings and birthday parties etc since then. She had never been on holiday with them before. . Her main connection with the McCanns was that they had a mutual friend in Fiona Payne. .Of all the people in that group - she knew the McCanns least of all and wasn't overly keen on GM.

Merrymo wrote:I do not believe that any reasonably intelligent person, which I presume JT is, would agree to implicate themselves as an 'Accessory to the death/murder of a child,' (thus risking a long prison sentence and the destruction of their own family's lives, especially their own children's) for a CLOSE friend, let alone someone who in relative terms, they hardly knew. And especially when they had no reason to agree to taking such a massive potentially life destroying criminal step - as neither she nor any of the group for that matter had done anything illegal themselves - even if the McCanns had.

Merrymo wrote:I am not a supporter of the parents as such, and have no particular feelings either way about the McCanns - except to say that I disagreed with their childminding arrangements and am shocked that some parents still adopt those same arrangements. .. I am a supporter of justice, and the concept of innocent until proved guilty. (have to go out now - back later)

nomendelta wrote:I am and have always been open-minded about this case because, unless the McCanns are out and out monsters there is no one theory I have found which answers the many puzzling questions about the case. So being of an open mind one has to consider the possibility that there was an abduction. As has been said, just because there were no signs doesn't mean it didn't happen. So how do we establish the likeliehood? Well the McCanns and their buddies all insist they are telling the truth and if we believe what they have said then it leaves the absolute tiniest (some would say implausibly so) window of opportunity for an abductor. So it would have been, by necessity, a rush job. In and out avoiding sightings. In such a case there would have been SOME sign of entry, disturbance etc. Yet other than what has been claimed (and a claim is not really evidential is it?) by Kate that the windo was open - there is not actual proof that it had been broken into. So unless a human imbued with super speed committed the abduction then it doesn't stand as that plausible a theory UNLESS of course there's stuff the McCanns aren't telling us. But then why would that be?

anil39200 wrote:Me, thanks, if you don't Mind me saying ,that was a superb dissection of Merrymo's "answer" to my post. The only things I would add are:

Merrymo, I am aware an abducted child is missing, but you twisted my point. A missing child is not necessarily an abducted one. The two are different premises. I believe I made that point. Please do noy attempt to draw words from my mouth again. I know what I said. Secondly, Ms Tanner, how exactly do you know the details you do? From the bewk by the mother? Perhaps it would ne better not to drink the Look Aid so much. Since the tome itself, the witness statements and subsequent reports display a plethora of inconsistencies which make a mockery of the idea that intelligence was a shared quality among this group and illiteracy, incompetence and sheer idiocy, a more likely possibility.

If it was just my opinion that this person's 'evolving' statements were reliable, then possibly, I might relent, but better minds than mine have called that information into question on many an occasion here and elsewhere. So, without repeating anything that has already been said, I fail to see how you can believe the abduction theory based upon an unreliable friend and the say so of the bewk. Their idea OS also just a theory, but, as has been proved so many times throughout history with propaganda, for war,religion,advertising etc, if you keep drilling into people the same old story,eventually, many of them get ground down and believe it. Thank goodness people like the ones here can question it. To find the real truthful account.

justcurious wrote:It is illegal to accept free holidays, gifts and inducements without declaring them and for companies to offer them. If it drew too much attention, by for example a child dying, by whatever reason, Doctors could lose their licence to practice and hence their lavish lifestyles. Well worth a cover-up.

russiandoll wrote: quite frustrating to be alone at a computer instead of being all around a table brainstorming and throwing out observations and ideas based on what others were saying

Merrymo, you stated this

Merrymo wrote:JT was not a particular friend of the McCanns, and since meeting them 4 years previously had only met up with them on 2/3 occasions per year - at weddings and birthday parties etc since then. She had never been on holiday with them before. . Her main connection with the McCanns was that they had a mutual friend in Fiona Payne. .Of all the people in that group - she knew the McCanns least of all and wasn't overly keen on GM.


Merrymo wrote:I do not believe that any reasonably intelligent person, which I presume JT is, would agree to implicate themselves as an 'Accessory to the death/murder of a child,' (thus risking a long prison sentence and the destruction of their own family's lives, especially their own children's) for a CLOSE friend, let alone someone who in relative terms, they hardly knew. And especially when they had no reason to agree to taking such a massive potentially life destroying criminal step - as neither she nor any of the group for that matter had done anything illegal themselves - even if the McCanns had.

If she did lie to protect someone, why do you name the McCann couple? Lets go with your case that she is not close to Kate and Gerry. Who else might she be protecting with whom she does have a very close relationship?

justcurious wrote:We are led to believe they were on a cheap "all inclusive" MW holiday package, basically pay one price and everything is covered, flights, transfers, meals accommodation, drinks, courier and childcare.


All inclusive in MW's case was from Gatwick. Meals and drinks at the Millienium only. Airport transfers off the Gatwick flight only included (see MW brochure and website.)

The McCanns and the Paynes found this unsuitable and booked their own flights from EMA at their own expense, this meant they had to pay for their own airport transfers too, at extra cost. The meals were only at the Millienuim the tapas is not, nor ever was part of the MW package (see MW brochure). so they paid extra for their meals and drinks, incurring extra cost. The full time childcare was £500 extra above the MW package cost, so the question is why pay for an all-inclusive deal and then pay again for everything?

They didn't care about the cost because they were not paying.imo It was a freebie from the start.imo The credit cards and bank statments were never produced, not because it would show what was spent but because they would show there was nothing spent. Having been on many of these jollies in a past life, I can well understand Gerry moaning "I'm not here to enjoy myself" but it is something you need to do if you want to climb and stay on the slippery slope.

If you give a Doctor 2 bottles of scotch its a gift, 12 is a bribe, so what is 6?

candyfloss wrote:

justcurious wrote:We are led to believe they were on a cheap "all inclusive" MW holiday package, basically pay one price and everything is covered, flights, transfers, meals accommodation, drinks, courier and childcare.


All inclusive in MW's case was from Gatwick. Meals and drinks at the Millienium only. Airport transfers off the Gatwick flight only included (see MW brochure and website.)

The McCanns and the Paynes found this unsuitable and booked their own flights from EMA at their own expense, this meant they had to pay for their own airport transfers too, at extra cost. The meals were only at the Millienuim the tapas is not, nor ever was part of the MW package (see MW brochure). so they paid extra for their meals and drinks, incurring extra cost. The full time childcare was £500 extra above the MW package cost, so the question is why pay for an all-inclusive deal and then pay again for everything?

They didn't care about the cost because they were not paying.imo It was a freebie from the start.imo The credit cards and bank statments were never produced, not because it would show what was spent but because they would show there was nothing spent. Having been on many of these jollies in a past life, I can well understand Gerry moaning "I'm not here to enjoy myself" but it is something you need to do if you want to climb and stay on the slippery slope.

If you give a Doctor 2 bottles of scotch its a gift, 12 is a bribe, so what is 6?

justcurious, I have added to your post imo as what you stated as fact is not proved.

This is from the editor of "This is money" who stayed in PDL in 2007 at the same time as the McCanns.................


The tapas bar meal was included in the package, but was very popular, therefore had to be booked in advance.


Madeleine and the younger twins Amelie and Sean were sleeping at the McCanns’ apartment overlooking the swimming pool at the main hub of the resort. Around that pool was the Tapas bar which was in high demand every night. Most guests went to the buffet at the Ocean Club’s Millennium restaurant, a 10-minute walk away from the McCanns’ apartment. But eager guests would queue from 9am to book one of the limited number of tables at the Tapas bar, which served barbecued fish and meat dishes to order. Both restaurants were included in the price of the holiday.

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

justcurious wrote:Could anyone please show where MW included the tapas as part of their all-inclusive packages then or now. Brochure, website, something official from MW. Not a letter from a friend of Clarence Mitchell.

Why would eager guests queue when you could just make a block booking for the week as the McCanns did? High demand, this is not what the PJ files show,nor the tapas booking forms.

candyfloss wrote:

justcurious wrote:Could anyone please show where MW included the tapas as part of their all-inclusive packages then or now. Brochure, website, something official from MW. Not a letter from a friend of Clarence Mitchell.

Why would eager guests queue when you could just make a block booking for the week as the McCanns did? High demand, this is not what the PJ files show,nor the tapas booking forms.

This editor is a friend of Clarence Mitchell eh? - where has that come from justcurious. It wasn't a letter, it was an article on the This is Money site which I have pasted in the Press Archives. Also you were not allowed to make a block booking for the week IIRC, as one of the tapas mentions in a statement. You had to book on the morning of the same day. The tapas were only allowed to do this as a special favour apparantly.

justcurious wrote:Where is the evidence the tapas meals were part of the all inclusive M.W.package.Please give the M.W.brochure page or website details.Writing in big bold letters does not make a thing true!