Re: How many more false sightings will there be of Madeleine McCann? (ARTICLE)

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.10 19:09

Oh geez.

by vaguely1 05.03.10 19:11

Okay, then for asking what you thought their reason for planning it was?

I was just interested - because if planned they've not made much out of such an astonishingly complex crime.

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.10 19:16

I wouldn't know what their reason was (if any) because I'm not the sort of person who could get inside the head of a person who could even consider it (like Karen Matthews for instance).

But with suggestions of paedophilia (Gaspars statements) and Payne's bathtime visits and Kate saying Maddie was difficult to control and Gerry's mum saying "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to", even though "That girl" had only just gone missing, then I reserve judgement on why I think the whole thing might have been pre-planned.

I certainly don't rule it out, especially with all the odd behaviour from the whole lot of them.

Like I said, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of their innocence. I don't buy it.

by hedge 05.03.10 19:20

jkh wrote:I wouldn't know what their reason was (if any) because I'm not the sort of person who could get inside the head of a person who could even consider it (like Karen Matthews for instance).

But with suggestions of paedophilia (Gaspars statements) and Payne's bathtime visits and Kate saying Maddie was difficult to control and Gerry's mum saying "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to", even though "That girl" had only just gone missing, then I reserve judgement on why I think the whole thing might have been pre-planned.

I certainly don't rule it out, especially with all the odd behaviour from the whole lot of them.

Like I said, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of their innocence. I don't buy it.

other than the gaspars statement which is muddled and contradictory as best (one had a bad feeling the other didn't) i donl;t even recognise that description, bathtime visits? difficult to control???? eh?

by vaguely1 05.03.10 19:29

jkh wrote:I wouldn't know what their reason was (if any) because I'm not the sort of person who could get inside the head of a person who could even consider it (like Karen Matthews for instance).

But with suggestions of paedophilia (Gaspars statements) and Payne's bathtime visits and Kate saying Maddie was difficult to control and Gerry's mum saying "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to", even though "That girl" had only just gone missing, then I reserve judgement on why I think the whole thing might have been pre-planned.

I certainly don't rule it out, especially with all the odd behaviour from the whole lot of them.

Like I said, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of their innocence. I don't buy it.

'm happy to wait it out. There will be a conviction one day. Wouldn't try to convince anyone of their innocence, because I'm not sure of their innocence.

Just interested in the different ways people see things and why. Probably because my thoughts on it change and hearing other peoples views helps me realise if I actually believe what I think I believe about certain aspects of the case.

by WOODWARD 05.03.10 19:44

I think the case is far simpler than the oj simpson style deliberate complicating which has gone on from day one.
The abductor story makes no sense,therefore it is nonsense.
As the multiple sightings have shown there was nothing special or different about Madeleine,nothing that would lead an international gang to single her out in a sleepy pre season holiday complex and take such ridiculous risks of being caught. The layout of the apartment and the non -jemmied shutters give the lie to the poorly staged abduction scenario,the obsfucation and unwillingness to co-operate with police by the tapas group would suggest something to hide. The dogs are the absolute clincher,rubbishing the dogs ,Amaral and the stifling of all opposing views are futile attempts to evade the justice that an innocent little girl deserves.-all IMO

by Snowy 05.03.10 20:17

jkh wrote:I wouldn't know what their reason was (if any) because I'm not the sort of person who could get inside the head of a person who could even consider it (like Karen Matthews for instance).

But with suggestions of paedophilia (Gaspars statements) and Payne's bathtime visits and Kate saying Maddie was difficult to control and Gerry's mum saying "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to", even though "That girl" had only just gone missing, then I reserve judgement on why I think the whole thing might have been pre-planned.

I certainly don't rule it out, especially with all the odd behaviour from the whole lot of them.

Like I said, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of their innocence. I don't buy it.

Sorry jill, but where the bluddy hell do you get 'pre-planned' out of that lot?

bigshock

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.10 20:23

Snowy wrote:
jkh wrote:I wouldn't know what their reason was (if any) because I'm not the sort of person who could get inside the head of a person who could even consider it (like Karen Matthews for instance).

But with suggestions of paedophilia (Gaspars statements) and Payne's bathtime visits and Kate saying Maddie was difficult to control and Gerry's mum saying "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to", even though "That girl" had only just gone missing, then I reserve judgement on why I think the whole thing might have been pre-planned.

I certainly don't rule it out, especially with all the odd behaviour from the whole lot of them.

Like I said, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of their innocence. I don't buy it.

Sorry jill, but where the bluddy hell do you get 'pre-planned' out of that lot?

It's always just been a gut feeling, that's all.

by bellatrix 05.03.10 22:01

jkh wrote:You Pro's can spout Gerry's mantra all you like, but I'm not a Pro or on the fence. I've made my opinion about them quite clear on here and on my blog and nothing any of you have said has made me change my mind. It's made me think, yes, but not change my mind.

I support Goncalo Amaral and his view of what happened based on the British police dogs which the British police, not Amaral, suggested were taken to PDL. That's why I spent so much time putting this blog together:

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

This case needs to be reopened so that the truth can be known and the perpetrators brought to justice, but until that happens then I will continue to believe in the dogs and not the rotting meat and dirty nappies excuses.

I'm sure you all have other forums where you can discuss how innocent the McCanns are, but this isn't one of them.

Does that mean only one opinion is allowed on here? I thought you said debate was good? (Confused-as always lol!)

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.10 22:12

bellatrix wrote:
jkh wrote:You Pro's can spout Gerry's mantra all you like, but I'm not a Pro or on the fence. I've made my opinion about them quite clear on here and on my blog and nothing any of you have said has made me change my mind. It's made me think, yes, but not change my mind.

I support Goncalo Amaral and his view of what happened based on the British police dogs which the British police, not Amaral, suggested were taken to PDL. That's why I spent so much time putting this blog together:

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

This case needs to be reopened so that the truth can be known and the perpetrators brought to justice, but until that happens then I will continue to believe in the dogs and not the rotting meat and dirty nappies excuses.

I'm sure you all have other forums where you can discuss how innocent the McCanns are, but this isn't one of them.

Does that mean only one opinion is allowed on here? I thought you said debate was good? (Confused-as always lol!)

Debate is good, but you Pro's hunt in packs and surround your victim til they lose the will to live.

Many members have given up posting here because of it. Which, I suppose, is what you're paid to do to shut us all up.

It might be worth people remembering that this forum is a place for the 'Anti's' and MF members and everyone else are just guests here, even those under instructions from Carter Ruck like Mike Gunnill.

The Pro's will be first out the door before the rest of us.

by aiyoyo 05.03.10 22:15

vaguely1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Is it that you're worried that you might be paying his benefits out of your taxes?
8)

In it? where does the word go start......once he found out that his brother had buried his own daughter, or before they went on holiday?

Their fraud scam is more worry-worthy if anyone is worried.
Their illegal deed (?) should be their worry and no one else, people just dont like to be fooled.

GO starts from when he was phone call informed .....or do you think otherwise?

Phone call informed what though? That Madeleine was missing, or that they had disposed of her?

If you think the man unlikely to give up his career to look after his family on the off chance that he could go back to it in less than 24 hours, I find it equally unlikely that he would give up his job to become involved in a cover up for his nieces death.

That she was dead.

Your argument fells flat on its face. If he thought he could possibly go back in less than 24 hours why quit then? What did he do for a job anyway since I am not well up on that?

At the speed it was taken and announced, he might have been asked by GM to give up.
Maybe he considered sacrificing for his brother ,and by extension the family, was well it because GM has a more society recognised job, plus with what's at stake, keeping the lid on to protect the family's good name became priority over his job.
NO matter how you look at it, it surely wasnt efficiency oversee for the search for Madeleine.

by vaguely1 05.03.10 22:19

jkh wrote:
bellatrix wrote:
jkh wrote:You Pro's can spout Gerry's mantra all you like, but I'm not a Pro or on the fence. I've made my opinion about them quite clear on here and on my blog and nothing any of you have said has made me change my mind. It's made me think, yes, but not change my mind.

I support Goncalo Amaral and his view of what happened based on the British police dogs which the British police, not Amaral, suggested were taken to PDL. That's why I spent so much time putting this blog together:

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

This case needs to be reopened so that the truth can be known and the perpetrators brought to justice, but until that happens then I will continue to believe in the dogs and not the rotting meat and dirty nappies excuses.

I'm sure you all have other forums where you can discuss how innocent the McCanns are, but this isn't one of them.

Does that mean only one opinion is allowed on here? I thought you said debate was good? (Confused-as always lol!)

Debate is good, but you Pro's hunt in packs and surround your victim til they lose the will to live.

Many members have given up posting here because of it. Which, I suppose, is what you're paid to do to shut us all up.

It might be worth people remembering that this forum is a place for the 'Anti's' and MF members and everyone else are just guests here, even those under instructions from Carter Ruck like Mike Gunnill.

The Pro's will be first out the door before the rest of us.

Jill,

Please could you delete my account.

I think I would be considered a pro here and I don't want to post amongst people who think I'm paid to post.

I'd also rather be somewhere that I'm considered a member, not a guest.

thank you.

by aiyoyo 05.03.10 22:28

[quote="jkh]Debate is good, but you Pro's hunt in packs and surround your victim til they lose the will to live.{/quote]

I noticed too. lol!

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.10 22:36

I'll tell you what, I came back here after recent events hoping to keep my mind occupied with the Maddie case but all I've had so far is grief and a whole load of spamming saying I gave my mother AIDS.

Well, this is clearly not the place for me. I came back too soon and I don't like what I see.

Trash the place if you want - it's only the Pro's that do that. I've yet to see a 'pack of Anti's' invade a forum and do what's been done here and on other forums.

God knows what Maddie ever did to deserve Pro supporters.

by bunny 05.03.10 22:38

ay? who has been spamming and saying you gave your mother Aids. Ive missed those posts??? wow

by bunny 05.03.10 22:52

Anyone?

by Kololi 05.03.10 22:56

Hi
Just logged in after having an hour as an elf and killing some rather mean ogres who were hell bent on eating some weird looking kid called Corki. Hey we all have things we like to do when not chatting here.......

Sad to see folks a little upset. Can I be so bold as to say that all the people here, whether they tend to appear to believe the abduction theory or they don't, make this a pleasant forum to be part of. Even Mr Grumpy deserves a hug on ocassions when you see all the posts with questions in for him to answer.

Come on guys, whatever we actually believe to have happened in our hearts, we can chat here generally without fear of being banned because we do not agree with the forum holder. Hows about we attack another bag of jelly babies and a few big bottles of wine in the Fencers Retreat.

One rule only - the nice new plump sofa is only for those of us who haven't made our final decision of what we think happened that fateful night. The rest of you get to stand...... big grin

Take care

by bunny 05.03.10 23:01

Sorry, i thought we were being polite. None of the pros on here have been rude.

I just dont understand any of this.

The spamming that went on in the morning, no one knows who that was and yet again its being attributed to a pro.

As for the aids thing. I havent seen that posted on here anywhere. So dont understand where that came from at all????

by twinkle 05.03.10 23:07

not sure what I have walked in on.
Jill is obviously pissed off with something that has happened this morning from what I can see. If we are adults about this then there is no need to take personal offence at this, just try to understand how others are feeling.

by bunny 05.03.10 23:09

Im not taking offence. Im trying to understand.

E.T.A. the spamming was the other morning Twinkle. My posts not worded to well. Sorry

by twinkle 05.03.10 23:12

Okay, sorry......not sure what is going on TBH.
Hope things can be resolved, it ain't to bad here.

by bunny 05.03.10 23:17

You and me both Twinkle...not sure whats going on.

thinking

by aliberte2 05.03.10 23:23

This Case has Attracted the Worst of the Worst on Both Sides.
What Happened to the 3As, for Example, was Not the Fault of "pros" At all.

by twinkle 06.03.10 0:04

The case may have attracted the worst from both sides, but this forum certainly hasn't.

by vaguely1 06.03.10 0:09

Oh I dunno twinks, having been told I was Satan to Mr Benett's jesus last night, and now being told half or us aren't members, just guests who are paid to post here anyway and hunt in packs as 'goons' from PFA I get the definite feeling that some of us are perceived to be the worst, even if that's not our intention.

all a bit sad really.

by bellatrix 06.03.10 0:26

jkh wrote:
bellatrix wrote:
jkh wrote:You Pro's can spout Gerry's mantra all you like, but I'm not a Pro or on the fence. I've made my opinion about them quite clear on here and on my blog and nothing any of you have said has made me change my mind. It's made me think, yes, but not change my mind.

I support Goncalo Amaral and his view of what happened based on the British police dogs which the British police, not Amaral, suggested were taken to PDL. That's why I spent so much time putting this blog together:

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

This case needs to be reopened so that the truth can be known and the perpetrators brought to justice, but until that happens then I will continue to believe in the dogs and not the rotting meat and dirty nappies excuses.

I'm sure you all have other forums where you can discuss how innocent the McCanns are, but this isn't one of them.

Does that mean only one opinion is allowed on here? I thought you said debate was good? (Confused-as always lol!)

Debate is good, but you Pro's hunt in packs and surround your victim til they lose the will to live.

Many members have given up posting here because of it. Which, I suppose, is what you're paid to do to shut us all up.

It might be worth people remembering that this forum is a place for the 'Anti's' and MF members and everyone else are just guests here, even those under instructions from Carter Ruck like Mike Gunnill.

The Pro's will be first out the door before the rest of us.

TBH I finding your post quite insulting.I have never "hunted in packs" nor am I paid to post nor do I class myself as a pro or anti.I do realise you have a lot on your plate at the moment so I hope a break from here will help.x

by aiyoyo 06.03.10 2:32

[quote="bunny"]Sorry, i thought we were being polite. None of the pros on here have been rude.

[quote]

It's interesting to note you concede there are pros here....

by aiyoyo 06.03.10 2:41

bellatrix wrote:[TBH I finding your post quite insulting.I have never "hunted in packs" nor am I paid to post nor do I class myself as a pro or anti.I do realise you have a lot on your plate at the moment so I hope a break from here will help.x

May I ask, why take offence if you are not guilty.

AFAIU, jkh was only making a point with the pros or those pros disguised as fence sitters how she wants her forum to be.

AFAIAC, as a member I considered myself a guest anyway.

by aliberte2 06.03.10 3:01

aiyoyo wrote:
bellatrix wrote:[TBH I finding your post quite insulting.I have never "hunted in packs" nor am I paid to post nor do I class myself as a pro or anti.I do realise you have a lot on your plate at the moment so I hope a break from here will help.x

May I ask, why take offence if you are not guilty.

Because it's an Untrue, Unfair Accusation?
Seriously?
You don't Take Offense When People Accuse You of Things You didn't Do?
No Wonder You Can't Understand the McCanns.

by Autumn 06.03.10 3:40

And what exactly is it we are not understanding about the McCanns?

Latest topics